• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

What do you think of feminism

paradoxparadigm7

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 1:46 PM
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
695
-->
Location
Central Illinois
Well she has big boobs omg it's her own fault. Beside how dare she be offended? Those who want to be offended will always find some reason to be. I tell you as a social outcast I also face harassment which isn't fair. Therefore other things which aren't fair are not problems, like sexism.

CC, are you directing your comments to me? In case you are, I'll respond. I in no way indicated she wanted the attention but simply that if she didn't want the attention, that's the definition of harassment. We don't know how she feels internally, just that it looked like she was disgusted by it and wanted to disappear. That was my only point.

Men and women alike, welcome sexual attention from those they are attracted to. Sexual vibes from a person you have a crush on is very welcome as opposed to the creepy guy/girl on the subway that leers at you. The same behavior (sexual attention of some sort) either make you feel creeped out or blush and flirt back.
 

Cherry Cola

Banned
Local time
Today 7:46 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
-->
Location
stockholm
I welcome all compliments, whether they come from ugly or handsome people; I'm not a discriminating bitch like that girl in the video.

sry trying to be ironic
 

Bock

caffeine fiend
Local time
Today 8:46 PM
Joined
Apr 21, 2014
Messages
225
-->
that if she didn't want the attention, that's the definition of harassment.

Men are expected to do the chasing. Men do not have psychic mental reading powers, what they do have is 5-10 times more testosterone than women, testosterone being the prime contributor to "libido". Women often play "hard to get", as a part of the courting (and not wanting to be labeled as "loose" etc). okcupid data also shows that women deem 80% of the men to be below average apperance-wise. Do you see a problematic pattern here? I do
 

Latte

Preferably Not Redundant
Local time
Today 8:46 PM
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
843
-->
Location
Where do you live?
~¤ New subtopic in regards to feminism beyond making sure legislation and its enforcement is not discriminatory against women.

¤ Was state pro-active attempts to compensate for cultural bias through discriminatory policies using quotas, financial incentives and in some cases lower relative entry requirements for studies a lesser evil over not doing it?

¤ Were there effective alternatives towards achieving gender mixing in professions and the starting of a process of less over generalization?

¤ At the current time, is the remains of such practices causing more harm than good to the average citizen in society? Have they run their course, so to speak, if they were necessary to begin with?

~ Personally I lean towards them doing more harm than good nowadays. That the majority population in western countries see people enough as individuals rather than representations of a demographic that this practice is best put to death, and the march of individual assessment into the minds of people will continue.
There is also the problem of how this practice in itself is discriminatory, and its defense fuels the idea of things like collective guilt and the narrative generally doesn't acknowledge that individuals do become victims of such policies.

~ It's hard to say if anything else would have been effective for sure... but we do know for a fact that cultural changes do tend to happen in the population among the majority before legislation is even allowed to happen, which does indicate that the legislation might not be necessary as it is already an expression of the way the wind is blowing. This does, obviously not apply to legislation that is inherently discriminatory of course.

~ In recent years I've been increasingly seeing a rise in the popularity of social revenge warriors (who used to be fringe), attacking and displacing the popularity of people who have more constructive approaches to what they think is bad with mainstream culture, essentially turning things into some kind of war instead of one where one tries to win people over. An "you're with us or you're a terrorist" kind of approach, where no discussion is allowed. If such continues and grows stronger, I'm genuinely afraid of pushes for increased speech/expression conformism from the barrel of a gun. It would be a wet dream tool very abusable for control-hungry intelligence agencies and entrenched groups of power.

~ The rise of the privileged white cis heterosexual male stereotype seems to lead to a form of over generalization, collective guilting, demographic vilification, etc. Things are going into an area where being regarded as being non-privileged has in itself become a form a privilege, and where being regarded as being seen as privileged can lead to resentment and assumptions in regards to how one is or thinks.

~ I say this not to make it into a competition of which demographic collectively suffers the most from the effects of mainstream cultural narratives, but to highlight and explore if "the revolution is in the process of being corrupted and co-opted in the aftermath of its most important victories", so to speak.

¤ What tend to be sustainable and constructive ways of trying to influence people and culture towards what one sees as better?
 

Latte

Preferably Not Redundant
Local time
Today 8:46 PM
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
843
-->
Location
Where do you live?
Men are expected to do the chasing. Men do not have psychic mental reading powers, what they do have is 5-10 times more testosterone than women, testosterone being the prime contributor to "libido". Women often play "hard to get", as a part of the courting (and not wanting to be labeled as "loose" etc). okcupid data also shows that women deem 80% of the men to be below average apperance-wise. Do you see a problematic pattern here? I do

Bothering people on the street, or just people who are in a setting that doesn't specifically indicate they want to talk with strangers isn't really defensible or something one can portray as necessary or a necessary implication of biology.

If I walk down the street in a large city, I'm going somewhere. If I don't make eye contact or stop up or otherwise signal social availability, don't disturb me. People who unilaterally decide to spend my attention, energy and time on them can sod off.

People who aren't capable of seeing when someone signals social availability should err on the side of caution.

This applies to more things than cat-calling and is basic gender neutral stranger etiquette. People like in that video are a noticeable and annoying minority, even in the US. In Norway, it's so socially unacceptable that it's not as much of a problem as there, luckily.

In regards to playing hard to get and also a giant tangent:

The solution is probably that the statistical woman has to get over herself and her insecurity if she feels she absolutely needs to be chased so much that she'll mess with someone's head and internally justify it, and the statistical male has to have the self-respect to not chase after women who are playing shitty mind games.

The uglier cousin of playing hard to get, the pro-active strategy of negging, also needs to be taken out behind the shed and shot in the head, and like with playing hard to get, it probably won't happen without a combination of it becoming ineffective (more females having the self-respect to not fall for that shit) and stigmatized... and the subset of men who do that to shrink through more and more not seeing it as something they need to do and trying to internally justify it.


It's not really quantitative gender libido differences that these things come from. It's more about the statistical female's want to feel desired by that which they find desirable and want to have sex with it, and the statistical male's want to have sex with that which is desirable and be desired by it, and these having been twisted into these more concrete forms of expressions and tactics employed for the purpose of obtaining those feelings. And of course, as you mentioned, there's the angle of playing hard to get having been culturally acceptable due to certain sexual-moral ideas in some cultures.

Playing hard to get or negging is not necessary in the slightest to fulfill such feelings, luckily, and they have strong negative side effects on people's psyches and culture in general.


Sidenote: How testosterone affects libido quantitatively is likely affected by other sex(female/male)-specific things, so while there is a correlation within sexes, cross-comparison is not that simple. Qualitative statistical differences have also been observed between the statistical man/female.
 

paradoxparadigm7

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 1:46 PM
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
695
-->
Location
Central Illinois
Men are expected to do the chasing. Men do not have psychic mental reading powers, what they do have is 5-10 times more testosterone than women, testosterone being the prime contributor to "libido". Women often play "hard to get", as a part of the courting (and not wanting to be labeled as "loose" etc). okcupid data also shows that women deem 80% of the men to be below average apperance-wise. Do you see a problematic pattern here? I do

My post before this outlines it more clearly: repeated unwanted sexual attention AND she didn't welcome the sexual attention, then she was sexually harassed by at least a few of the men who repeated his advancement. This is basically the definition of sexual harassment in the work place at least in the US. She possibly could have legal recourse or reason to involve the police with the guy who walked besides her for over 5 minutes. This definition doesn't require mind-reading just simply being able to read body language and retreating in response.

Additionally, the notion of men to chasing and women playing hard to get is more of a function of age. As both sexes mature, this expectation becomes blurred and both sexes feel free to take on either role.
 

Bock

caffeine fiend
Local time
Today 8:46 PM
Joined
Apr 21, 2014
Messages
225
-->
Bothering people on the street isn't really defensible

Unwanted attention is non-mutual so yes, i agree with that. I didn't "defend" it though.

or something one can portray as necessary or a necessary implication of biology.

You are nothing but biology in action.

It's not really about gender libido differences that these things come from.

If you're going to try to argue against libido being a significant factor in this context (human courtship/mating), you'd better come up with something really good... This is self explanatory.

It's more about the statistical female's want to feel desired by that which they find desirable and have sex with it, and the statistical male's want to have sex with that which is desirable and be desired by it, and these having been twisted into these more concrete forms of expressions and tactics employed for the purpose of obtaining those feelings.

:confused:

Playing hard to get or negging is not necessary in the slightest to fulfill such feelings,

Doesn't matter why it happens, the product of it (a large percentage of males hitting on everything they see because the human sexual dance is rigged against them, amongst other things) on the other hand is quite relevant though.

Sidenote: How testosterone affects libido quantitatively is likely affected by other sex(female/male)-specific things, so while there is a correlation within sexes, cross-comparison is not that simple. Qualitative statistical differences have also been observed between the statistical man/female.

wikipedia has enough information on the subject, if reality and the fact that this pattern shows up in every single corner of society, isn't enough. The male sexdrive being significantly stronger than the females is indisputable.
 

Latte

Preferably Not Redundant
Local time
Today 8:46 PM
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
843
-->
Location
Where do you live?
Simplified:

A = "Biological base want"
B & company = Behavior

Let's say you have A and that A must lead to something.
A can lead to B, but that is not to say that it cannot also lead to C, F or Y.

The individual human's base psychological wants are for the most part quite non-concrete, often just the feeling of an urge to get another feeling, and as such, the paths in which they can be expressed or acted upon are varied when it comes to possible behaviors. Wants are also modified through the influence of other want that may take priority, amplify or affect the expression and method of pursuing the want.

This is part of why we are so adaptable, culturally, technologically, ideologically, blablalogically.
 

Absurdity

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 11:46 AM
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
2,359
-->
~ In recent years I've been increasingly seeing a rise in the popularity of social revenge warriors (who used to be fringe), attacking and displacing the popularity of people who have more constructive approaches to what they think is bad with mainstream culture, essentially turning things into some kind of war instead of one where one tries to win people over. An "you're with us or you're a terrorist" kind of approach, where no discussion is allowed. If such continues and grows stronger, I'm genuinely afraid of pushes for increased speech/expression conformism from the barrel of a gun. It would be a wet dream tool very abusable for control-hungry intelligence agencies and entrenched groups of power.

~ The rise of the privileged white cis heterosexual male stereotype seems to lead to a form of over generalization, collective guilting, demographic vilification, etc. Things are going into an area where being regarded as being non-privileged has in itself become a form a privilege, and where being regarded as being seen as privileged can lead to resentment and assumptions in regards to how one is or thinks.

It's just the latest incarnation of Puritanism, and I don't think the parallels are at all coincidental. There are a lot of patterns which seem to be pulled directly from the most reform-oriented strains of Christianity, such as the slave morality, the ascetic or abstinent ideal (hyperzealous policing of sexual consent and sexual harassment), the guilt-oriented rhetorical tactics, etc. I'm not sure if this is uniquely attributable to the Christian legacy or not. In any event, the entire purpose seems to be the attainment of status by the self-righteous.

¤ What tend to be sustainable and constructive ways of trying to influence people and culture towards what one sees as better?

The rules of the status game need to be changed. I don't think it can be abolished entirely though, which likely presents the greatest challenge, since the Puritanical strategy seems to be extremely effective in a variety of cultural scenarios.
 

paradoxparadigm7

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 1:46 PM
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
695
-->
Location
Central Illinois
If nothing else, the men in the video are stupid if they think this will attract a sexual participant. I'd argue the hallmark of HUMAN sexual desire is having a measure of control over our urges rather then being lead by them.
 

Bock

caffeine fiend
Local time
Today 8:46 PM
Joined
Apr 21, 2014
Messages
225
-->
My post before this outlines it more clearly: repeated unwanted sexual attention AND she didn't welcome the sexual attention, then she was sexually harassed by at least a few of the men who repeated his advancement.

I have not seen the video (i guess it's a video :phear:), i don't believe it matters for the stuff i quoted earlier. With that said, any advances after a clear "no" is ofc harassment.

In general though - Complaining about too many compliments/advances (notice how i say advances and not harassment here) is problematic, it lacks perspective (something every single human suffers from though, kinda comes with our brain and the nature of our percieved consciousness etc...).

This is basically the definition of sexual harassment in the work place at least in the US. She possibly could have legal recourse or reason to involve the police with the guy who walked besides her for over 5 minutes. This definition doesn't require mind-reading just simply being able to read body language and retreating in response.

I guess i need to watch the video...

Women abusing the legal system and the "women-are-wonderful"-effect isn't exactly unheard of though. Fear of false rape charges etc is a real thing. At least two sides to everything...


Additionally, the notion of men to chasing and women playing hard to get is more of a function of age. As both sexes mature, this expectation becomes blurred and both sexes feel free to take on either role.

It has little to do with "maturing" or expectations. Men are attracted to looks, females lose their looks as they age, while men become "manlier" and increase in value as they age (and most importantly they've had time to acquire status and wealth/stability) -> "settling" happens, AKA playfield becoming somewhat balanced. And ofc the males libido tones down as they age because of hormonal changes. Also female "biological clock" etc...

Female sexual (and arguably societal, sadly) value peaks relatively early, while male value peaks much later.
 

Bock

caffeine fiend
Local time
Today 8:46 PM
Joined
Apr 21, 2014
Messages
225
-->
The individual human's base psychological wants are for the most part quite non-concrete

Indeed, there's always 1-2 out of every 100k guys that prefer to put their penis into exhaust pipes and bicycle seats instead of vag.
 

The Gopher

President
Local time
Tomorrow 4:46 AM
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
4,671
-->
okcupid data also shows that women deem 80% of the men to be below average apperance-wise. Do you see a problematic pattern here? I do

Wow now I think about I see at least 80% of men to be below average.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Tomorrow 4:46 AM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
-->
Location
69S 69E
I'd say that you'd typically expect men on a dating site to be below average in physical appearance and mental aptitude.
 

Bock

caffeine fiend
Local time
Today 8:46 PM
Joined
Apr 21, 2014
Messages
225
-->
I'd say that you'd typically expect men on a dating site to be below average in physical appearance and mental aptitude.

If that was true, the women would be of equally lower quality and my point would still stand. It's not the 90s anymore btw, dating sites and fuck-apps turned into hedonism-maximizers for both the masses and the bomb shells, people who got fucked over by the genetic lottery are a minority.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Tomorrow 4:46 AM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
-->
Location
69S 69E
Well you just keep telling yourself whatever helps you sleep at night. I'm too lazy to enter into a debate about this stuff while on my mobile, but it only takes me about two minutes on a dating site to figure out why so many of the people there can't find a partner - and it's not because of women having high standards or whatever other bro philosophy young-middle aged men seem to often tell themselves.

Also this video.
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Today 11:46 AM
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,828
-->
Location
California, USA
If the definition of sexual harassment is repeated unwanted sexual attention AND she didn't welcome the sexual attention, then she was sexually harassed by at least a few of the men who repeated his advancement.

So it rests within the subjective experience of the person. I don't think laws are the answer to this public place situation unlike workplace harassment where you have to be around offending individuals to do your job. She could have a legal right to get the police involved if someone kept at it like the creepy guy who walked beside her for over 5 minutes.
If nothing else, the men in the video are stupid if they think this will attract a sexual participant. I'd argue the hallmark of HUMAN sexual desire is having a measure of control over our urges rather then being lead by them.
I agree that this is a fluid social interaction matter that can't be solved by laws. Some women might welcome the attention, others reluctantly so, and still some might take offense and completely disregard it.

I don't think all of those men are stupid. Sure some just had instinctive reactions to an attractive female, but you can bet at least a couple of those guys were trying to play the numbers game and catch a vulnerable female.

I also think these kinds of situations have other implications beyond harassment/feminism, such as in social trust/social capital.
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Today 11:46 AM
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,828
-->
Location
California, USA
I didn't watch the video, but that sure sounds rapey.
Watch the video and you can see it, one of them really gave off that vibe. Those guys knew what they were doing.


When a person gets therapy for social anxiety, they are taught that no-one is even paying attention to you. Nobody hardly notices you are even there. People are just minding their own business, you can be rest-assured.
Yeah it's not the same for everyone. What kind of counseling would celebrities seek out?
 

Violine

Redshirt
Local time
Today 8:46 PM
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
20
-->
Location
Sweden
It's quite hard to say if feminism have gone too far in these days, because in these times, feminists try to handle the harder questions that are left. For example, abortion right and right to vote are not hard questions because you can just solve them by changing in the law, give the women basic human rights. But those things feminists struggle with today are not inequalities in the law but inequalities in the culture, which is much harder to solve. It's not easy to change other peoples minds. And yes, there is a problem with the fact that there are differences with women and men, not only physical but psychological. But the question is where the limit is, and nobody knows that, simply because we don't know that much about the human brain and difference between men and women, and we know that also the enviroment shape us as person. So a question would be if it would matter if we treat girls and boys more equal.

But if I think that we still need feminism? For me, yes, because there are still some inequalities I want to equalize, like that in a relationship it's the women's response to make the food etc. For me that is very unfair, and if I myself come in to that situation, then I will refuse to make children.
 

ProxyAmenRa

Here to bring back the love!
Local time
Tomorrow 4:46 AM
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
4,668
-->
Location
Australia
It's quite hard to say if feminism have gone too far in these days, because in these times, feminists try to handle the harder questions that are left. For example, abortion right and right to vote are not hard questions because you can just solve them by changing in the law, give the women basic human rights.

Human rights granted by law? Well that's a joke. We have been granted certain inalienable rights by the creator. It is up to law makers and the law to codify this.

Abortion is a question of morality. Is aborting a child not yet born immoral? If it is immoral, it should be unlawful. God also gave us freewill. Even if the law does not protect unborn children and abortion is wrong, those committing murder are the ones sinning.

But if I think that we still need feminism? For me, yes, because there are still some inequalities I want to equalize, like that in a relationship it's the women's response to make the food etc. For me that is very unfair, and if I myself come in to that situation, then I will refuse to make children.

:rolleyes:

Kiddo, you know what my mother told me? Well, no you don't so I will tell you. She said "if you don't want to do something, don't do it." You live in a country where it is not dictated that in a relationship you must cook and look after children. If you do pursue a relationship, I do encourage you to find a guy that conforms to your sensibilities. I am sure there are plenty out there. You know? Those nice kind sensitive guys. The ones who are not bred winners. ;)
 

ProxyAmenRa

Here to bring back the love!
Local time
Tomorrow 4:46 AM
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
4,668
-->
Location
Australia
Are you trolling?

Well, yes, in a way. It is absurd to think that lawmakers are mainly interested in passing bills that reflects a rational universal set of rights that governs interpersonal interaction. Ideally, they should be doing this but they don't. They become concerned with preventing the building of oil pipelines because, you know, oil pipelines will cause the atmosphere to set on fire such to murder polar bears.
 

doncarlzone

Useless knowledge
Local time
Today 7:46 PM
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
426
-->
Location
Scandinavia
Well, yes, in a way. It is absurd to think that lawmakers are mainly interested in passing bills that reflects a rational universal set of rights that governs interpersonal interaction. Ideally, they should be doing this but they don't. They become concerned with preventing the building of oil pipelines because, you know, oil pipelines will cause the atmosphere to set on fire such to murder polar bears.

Ah right, makes more sense now.
 

ProxyAmenRa

Here to bring back the love!
Local time
Tomorrow 4:46 AM
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
4,668
-->
Location
Australia
You know what? We now have the defining moment on television when feminism as as a movement lost all credibility:

460x276xmatt-taylor.jpg.pagespeed.ic.WT-ekaMPyE.jpg


:/
 

Pyropyro

Magos Biologis
Local time
Tomorrow 2:46 AM
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
4,044
-->
Location
Philippines
You know what? We now have the defining moment on television when feminism as as a movement lost all credibility:

460x276xmatt-taylor.jpg.pagespeed.ic.WT-ekaMPyE.jpg


:/

I kinda liked his t-shirt
 

Jaffa

Active Member
Local time
Today 7:46 PM
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
177
-->
Location
UK
Equality is here, legally speaking. At least so in the UK.

But ideals still exist in our culture and society that mean that it still isn't equal. I met a girl recently who is a bit of a closet feminist, I find discussions with her to be invigorating.

Why are women almost always expected to be the ones who take time off work after having a child? Is the Maternal bond stronger than the Paternal one? I'd be more than happy to do my part where children are involved but she is correct in what she says. It is almost a social normality and it shouldn't be.

Why do many men still expect their female counter-parts to cook and clean? Why is this normal or acceptable? It's a stereotype that the man gets in from work and puts the TV on while the wife prepares tea, maybe 50 years ago when most families had just one income then this would be an acceptable way of thinking but I don't think that's the case in 2014 when many/most women also work just as many hours as men.

Flipside, she also complained about the average salaries of men and women and how men are paid alot more than women in general and this is where feminism gets to me a little as it's no longer about equality. Look at sports, for example. Men have bigger frames, men have testosterone pumping through their veins and men are generally bigger and stronger than women. You only need to watch a run-of-the-mill game of Tennis to see the huge difference in skill and pace between Mens and Ladies matches.

Plus, in the corporate world men do not require time off to carry a child, while this shouldn't be discriminatory towards women I do see it from a business perspective. I also notice the difference in attitudes between both genders, women being far more inclined to focus on their personal and family lives than men do.

A good example of feminism going beyond equality is with car insurance prices in the UK. Historically, women have had cheaper car insurance than men. However, the EU passed regulations that meant that insurance companies could no longer base their quotes on your gender. There was a huge outcry about it from women. Boot on the other foot.....

In summary, I believe in equality - we are all human, gender shouldn't play a part. But we need to come to terms with the fact that we are GENETICALLY different and we are programmed differently.
 

Mordecai

Nostalgic Time Transcender
Local time
Today 2:46 PM
Joined
Nov 19, 2014
Messages
51
-->
Location
Pandora
Feminism is good in its core, but vastly overused. To be more accurate, the phrase "That's sexist!" is overused in our society.
 

Violine

Redshirt
Local time
Today 8:46 PM
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
20
-->
Location
Sweden
Human rights granted by law? Well that's a joke. We have been granted certain inalienable rights by the creator. It is up to law makers and the law to codify this.

Abortion is a question of morality. Is aborting a child not yet born immoral? If it is immoral, it should be unlawful. God also gave us freewill. Even if the law does not protect unborn children and abortion is wrong, those committing murder are the ones sinning.



:rolleyes:

Kiddo, you know what my mother told me? Well, no you don't so I will tell you. She said "if you don't want to do something, don't do it." You live in a country where it is not dictated that in a relationship you must cook and look after children. If you do pursue a relationship, I do encourage you to find a guy that conforms to your sensibilities. I am sure there are plenty out there. You know? Those nice kind sensitive guys. The ones who are not bred winners. ;)

I don't really understand what you mean. If we take a basic human right as the right to democracy, of course there has to be a law that have been determined that. Or you mean that we would have not changed the law so that women still not could vote and voting should only be for men? According to abortion, I already took for granted that it is moral, simply because it's not murder. Of course the first thing people will look at is if it really is murder, and therefore evaluate its morality.
Yes, thank you. Of course I will look after a guy that is able to not put responsibility for me. The hard thing is to really find such a guy. And you cannot deny that it's much simpler for a man to find a woman who is willing to apportion the responsibilities equal than for a woman to fins a man who is willing to the same thing. This simple unseen law, that if you are born in one kind of sex, then it's you who have to make the hard adventure to find the good match. And if it's possible the change this unseen law, if the culture CAN change, then there is all right for those women who want to make it change.
 

ProxyAmenRa

Here to bring back the love!
Local time
Tomorrow 4:46 AM
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
4,668
-->
Location
Australia
1) If you can legitimately call democracy a right, I can legitimately call chocolate a right. Better yet, ponies are a right.
2) Can you justify why abortion isn't murder under scrutiny? If you can't, you may want to reevaluate your stance. May god have mercy on your soul.
3) There are plenty of men out there who don't assume women should do all of the housework. The problem being is that your probably not attracted to them. You know? Those wimpy men who aren't bred winners and can't grow a beard.
4) What culture needs changing?
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Tomorrow 4:46 AM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
-->
Location
69S 69E
It's "bread" winners. As in capable of putting food on the table and providing resources.

Also "wimpiness" has nothing to do with whether or not one prefers to share household tasks with a partner.

Not to mention, for such a "bred winner" Proxy you sure seem to have a lot of trouble finding a partner who respects you. Hasn't seemed like you've had a shortage of relationship problems yourself. Maybe there's the possibility the whole concept of being a "bred winner" isn't all that important - in light of all the other things that go into a successful relationship?
 

Jennywocky

Tacky Flamingo
Local time
Today 2:46 PM
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,736
-->
Location
Charn
1) If you can legitimately call democracy a right, I can legitimately call chocolate a right. Better yet, ponies are a right.

274599__UNOPT__safe_pinkie-pie_animated_reaction-image_clapping_orson-welles.gif


Hell, yeah! So where's my fucking chocolate pony, biatch?

2) Can you justify why abortion isn't murder under scrutiny? If you can't, you may want to reevaluate your stance. May god have mercy on your soul.

Because you can't assign legal status = crime to something that hasn't been born yet and isn't even officially a member of the society until then?

... and because you wouldn't actually try to argue something that is really just based on one's personal religious beliefs, as if they should be self-evident? And then toss in an argument from authority AKA "God is on my side, not yours"?

3) There are plenty of men out there who don't assume women should do all of the housework. The problem being is that your probably not attracted to them. You know? Those wimpy men who aren't bred winners and can't grow a beard.

Thank god, the ad hominem is finally making a comeback. It's been too long.

4) What culture needs changing?

Rhetoric question -- One-Love.



... and yes, this entire post is an "argument from sarcasm."
 

crippli

disturbed
Local time
Today 8:46 PM
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
1,779
-->
Is masturbation, excessively, mass murder? Each round could have created children that does not get to be created. Similar with an unfertilized egg.

Not sure there is a huge difference as long as a creation have not been born. Women should have the right, morally to terminate a pregnancy all the way up to birth, as it's still a two person thing. The woman have the right because she carries the risk. The man have a STD risk, but that will not be related to the creation, hence no right for termination, other then the creation.

Once the offspring have drawn it's own breath, and navel string cut. It's part of the planet, and parents loses all rights towards termination.

IMO. So no. Feminism have not come far enough. To far in some areas some places, but not far enough on areas where sexism is relevant.

Perhaps the main annoyance with sexism is that it gets injected like anabolic steroids where it is not relevant, other then to gain power on artificial ground. Both masculism and feminism is guilty in this. In specific areas excessively. I'd like to see both movements work on more relevant matters then what is generally the cases. That would bring sexism onto a higher level then where it usually is at.

It is the dominating tendency of masculism that forces feminism to retaliate most often, compared to a harmonious relationship. Newtons third law of motion states clearly how this works. So complaining one way or the other isn't much useful. As long as the system is in balance it is in balance. There are also joker cards in the deck, that can be played to bring the systems into balance.

Globally. Feminism have generally the upper hand in the west. While masculism in the east. The east is larger, so feminism have yet a way to go. Equality shouldn't be a goal. If feminism get the upper hand globally, satisfaction will arrive at about 75% dominance. With satisfaction comes laxness. And with time masculism will again reach 75%. And so it goes, back and fourth. Out and in. Only with short brakes to catch the breath.
 

Cherry Cola

Banned
Local time
Today 7:46 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
-->
Location
stockholm
Who can't justify that abortion isn't murder? You have to be really stupid not to be able to do that.
 

The Grey Man

τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει
Local time
Today 1:46 PM
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
859
-->
Location
Canada
Is masturbation, excessively, mass murder? Each round could have created children that does not get to be created. Similar with an unfertilized egg.

Not sure there is a huge difference as long as a creation have not been born. Women should have the right, morally to terminate a pregnancy all the way up to birth, as it's still a two person thing. The woman have the right because she carries the risk. The man have a STD risk, but that will not be related to the creation, hence no right for termination, other then the creation.

Once the offspring have drawn it's own breath, and navel string cut. It's part of the planet, and parents loses all rights towards termination.

I disagree. Masturbation is not murder because no conception event has taken place to trigger the development of a human. And there's nothing moral about justifying the killing of a human organism with its dependence on its mother. The offspring is a part of the planet no matter where its sustenance comes from.
 

crippli

disturbed
Local time
Today 8:46 PM
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
1,779
-->
I disagree. Masturbation is not murder because no conception event has taken place to trigger the development of a human. And there's nothing moral about justifying the killing of a human organism with its dependence on its mother. The offspring is a part of the planet no matter where its sustenance comes from.
The creation of the sperm cell and egg, that is imo where the human start its life divided. The merge is but a necessary step along the way to trigger growth. But was not where it started.

Abortion should be morally justifiable if there is risk involved by giving life support. As in the right thing to do is not to save another person if both will die.

A person sleeping inside a burning building will in that moment be dependent on you, if you are outside. As moral is the right thing to do, I do not see a moral problem by standing put, if there is more of a risk both will burn up. Two burning instead of one should be the wrong thing to do, immoral. Maybe one can save a 100 people later. Or give birth to 10 babies later instead.
 

ProxyAmenRa

Here to bring back the love!
Local time
Tomorrow 4:46 AM
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
4,668
-->
Location
Australia
Hell, yeah! So where's my fucking chocolate pony, biatch?

Fuck yeah! Where are our chocolate ponies?

Because you can't assign legal status = crime to something that hasn't been born yet and isn't even officially a member of the society until then?

Ok. Cool. Half decent argument. So yeah, animals. In western societies it is typically viewed that cruelty towards animals is a immoral thing. Reason being, like humans, they have the ability to feel. Due to this similarity with us and our empathy, we recognize that we do not have the right to abuse animals. At the same time just because animals have a limited right, they are not members of society. In all other circumstances other than abortion, fetuses do have the same lawful protection from violence as the rest of society. A guy in the US was recently charged with murder when he caused a miscarriage by mixing ru486 into his girlfriend's food.

Just something to think about...

... and because you wouldn't actually try to argue something that is really just based on one's personal religious beliefs, as if they should be self-evident? And then toss in an argument from authority AKA "God is on my side, not yours"?

Wait, wait, wait, I am not religious. I am agnostic. I just thought people sometimes might want god's mercy.

Thank god, the ad hominem is finally making a comeback. It's been too long.

I believe that there is something wrong with men who can't grow beards.

... and yes, this entire post is an "argument from sarcasm."

Love it.
 

Cherry Cola

Banned
Local time
Today 7:46 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
-->
Location
stockholm
Abortion discussions are abominations. On one side we have rationality and actual compassion, on the other side we have a bunch of retards insisting on that the world works the way they intuitively feel it does, they mistake vanity for compassion and they will use suppressed correlatives, semantics and just good ol faulty logic to further their case.

All because they can't face the fact that just because something is biologically human and looks human and your brain responds to it like it is that don't mean it is worth shit. A newborn baby is dumber than most animals by far, it shouldn't have any rights at all on its own, the only reason killing it would be a crime is because of the effect it would have on people around it.

This is some really simple shit, but people are just too scared and vain to admit it. And boy do they like to think they have the moral upper hand when they don't. Actual compassion requires you to be in tune with reality, otherwise all you have are good intentions.
 

Cherry Cola

Banned
Local time
Today 7:46 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
-->
Location
stockholm
Already done it and so have plenty of others. Unless of course you're going to play semantics by using the fallacy of lost contrast. In which case the discussion you want to have is one consisting of pointless sophistry with no bearing on reality.

Basically either abortion isn't murder, or abortion is murder but murder isn't necessarily bad. Of course the second option is far too complex for the average person to grasp. Because for most people murder is inherently bad, always. Otherwise anti-abortionists wouldn't use this sorry excuse for an argument.

How about instead of playing with words we ask ourselves whether abortion is good or bad on the whole? Of course doing so wouldn't favor anti-abortionists so they have to make it a matter of semantics instead.
 

ProxyAmenRa

Here to bring back the love!
Local time
Tomorrow 4:46 AM
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
4,668
-->
Location
Australia
Abortion discussions are abominations. On one side we have rationality and actual compassion, on the other side we have a bunch of retards insisting on that the world works the way they intuitively feel it does, they mistake vanity for compassion and they will use suppressed correlatives, semantics and just good ol faulty logic to further their case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6kshHYBV3Y&list=UUy9VHF_ihqzBsx9tr0_XZIQ

All because they can't face the fact that just because something is biologically human and looks human and your brain responds to it like it is that don't mean it is worth shit. A newborn baby is dumber than most animals by far, it shouldn't have any rights at all on its own, the only reason killing it would be a crime is because of the effect it would have on people around it.

And thus you have created a theory of rights based on how dumb things are. Under your system when would it be permissible to kill someone? Like people with an iq less than 60? Or less than 90? If people believe it is permissible to kill fetuses or infants because they are dumb, why don't they kill all of the cognitively deficient people in society? Sure, people could save a couple bucks by doing so.

This just reminds me of something:

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

Of course the second option is far too complex for the average person to grasp.

Don't worry, man. Under your system it is permissible to kill the dumb.
 

crippli

disturbed
Local time
Today 8:46 PM
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
1,779
-->
How about instead of playing with words we ask ourselves whether abortion is good or bad on the whole?
It is the person who gives life support that need to decide if they wish to do so.

Like if I accidentally eat some nasty food, it is my right to put my finger in my troat to puke it up.

What this question is also about is the forcing of a doctor to do abortion if the situation is not life threatening.

The questions give themselves. Don't force anyone to anything. Let them do their thing.
 

Cherry Cola

Banned
Local time
Today 7:46 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
-->
Location
stockholm
And thus you have created a theory of rights based on how dumb things are. Under your system when would it be permissible to kill someone? Like people with an iq less than 60? Or less than 90? If people believe it is permissible to kill fetuses or infants because they are dumb, why don't they kill all of the cognitively deficient people in society? Sure, people could save a couple bucks by doing so.

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

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.
 

Cherry Cola

Banned
Local time
Today 7:46 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
-->
Location
stockholm
It is the person who gives life support that need to decide if they wish to do so.

Like if I accidentally eat some nasty food, it is my right to put my finger in my troat to puke it up.

What this question is also about is the forcing of a doctor to do abortion if the situation is not life threatening.

The questions give themselves. Don't force anyone to anything. Let them do their thing.

They should've thought about that before they became doctors. I wouldn't become a policeman and then refuse to arrest people who smoke cannabis because I don't personally believe that it should be illegal.
 

crippli

disturbed
Local time
Today 8:46 PM
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
1,779
-->
They should've thought about that before they became doctors. I wouldn't become a policeman and then refuse to arrest people who smoke cannabis because I don't personally believe that it should be illegal.
There is a step from writing down an instruction on arresting cannabis users, to the actuall arrest itself. Who knows, they may want to have a beer in the pub instead. I wouldn't be one to criticize that decision.

So forcing a doctor to do abortion is okay, if the law say so? So what matters is what the law says? All I need do is make abortion illegal and you will be against abortion?
 

Cherry Cola

Banned
Local time
Today 7:46 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
-->
Location
stockholm
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.
 

k9b4

Banned
Local time
Tomorrow 4:16 AM
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
364
-->
Location
in a house
Women and men are different. Different sex hormones change the body (including the brain) in different ways. Testosterone causes stronger logic development I believe.

I think that men and women should be given the same opportunities to prove their skills, but the fact is that men are generally better at some things than women, and vice versa.

If a woman is refused a job based on her gender, not her skills, then I think there is a problem. It is entirely possible for a woman to be more logical than a man, it is simply statistically unlikely.

And thus you have created a theory of rights based on how dumb things are. Under your system when would it be permissible to kill someone? Like people with an iq less than 60? Or less than 90? If people believe it is permissible to kill fetuses or infants because they are dumb, why don't they kill all of the cognitively deficient people in society? Sure, people could save a couple bucks by doing so.
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.
 
Top Bottom