I shall shut up about this topic at least for a while now, but for anyone out there still thinking that #MRA’s and other critics of mainstream #feminism and of the concepts of #patriarchy and #maleprivilege are some kind of delusional misogynists amplifying trifles for the sake of controversy: please spend a few minutes reviewing the data (not opinion — data) contained here:
@tripu A house pet has a better life than many people, but it will never be as free.
The freedom and rights of women are psychologically diminished by the society that cherishes them as objects of intrinsic value (to bare children) and purpose (to raise children). Many women are led to believe that they can have no greater value or purpose.
They are given rights to children to fulfill their intrinsic purpose.
Sexual assault of women is considered worse than other types of assault, because it harms their intrinsic value. In general loss of life or health of a woman is considered worse that of a man for the same reason (still not as bad as sexual assault, cause to justify ourselves we turned the object of a woman into a religion).
Defeat this culture, and all your men issues, which are consequences of objectification of women, will largely go away.
Nobody calling themselves a feminist and in possession of basic logic would argue that any of this is good and how things should be. It’s like you met some delusional fanatic, and decided that the only way to counteract them is to accept the premise and the approach and be just as zealous except in the opposite direction.
Women and men not being identical is not particular to an age. It doesn't have an expiration date. It is an immutable fact of humanity. Equality is a delusional dream.
Assault against women is significantly worse than assault against men. Women are precious assets that need protecting. Men are not. This is a reality you cannot change.
@Eris In the same way that explanation is different from an assertion.
Are you going to get apeshit again if I open your eyes to the fact that I expressed no opinion in this tread? I simply explained that men face the presented practical disadvantages of life disproportionately because of cultural oppression of women.
Then you barrage in and screech that no solution compatible with the existence of humanity exists. why? how? I mean who cares? All that matters is that you are right!
>Defeat this culture, and all your men issues, which are consequences of objectification of women, will largely go away.
This isn't an opinion?
> that no solution compatible with the existence of humanity exists
Is that not an opinion I'm allowed to have? That you can't shape humanity into something it isn't?
>why? how?
Because the things you call "issues" are not issues. They are features, not bugs. Men and women are different, and that is not a problem. Different things are treated differently, and that is not a problem either.
>how? I mean who cares? All that matters is that you are right!
You have such a dismissive and condescending attitude. I would love to tell you why I am right, but you don't seem to want to listen.
> This isn't an opinion?
How is that an opinion? If you agree with everything else I postulated there you have to agree with that lemma, otherwise you are free to point out where you see logical contradictions. The lemma is presented as relevant to the OP.
> Because the things you call "issues" are not issues
take it with the OP, unless once again you are going to completely ignore them to wedge your own unrelated agenda into the thread.
> You have such a dismissive and condescending attitude. I would love to tell you why I am right, but you don't seem to want to listen.
With statements so bold, you have to stater with the why, otherwise you are the one condescending.
OP: post bajilion articles with more text tan you ever read in your entire life on any one thing
me: responds with a freaking short essay
you: short assertion
me: oh let me guess... this is why?
you: no my assertion is true because it's true
me: ok, to each their own
you: no, I'm right
me: why, again?
you: you don't deserve an explanation! reeeee
>If you agree with everything else I postulated there you have to agree with that lemma,
Yes, but what if I don't?
>take it with the OP,
I am. I am also taking it up with you.
It's called discussion.
>unless once again you are going to completely ignore them to wedge your own unrelated agenda into the thread.
Sorry, have we met? You seem to have lots of preconceptions about how I behave.
>With statements so bold, you have to stater with the why,
Even if I do, you pretend I don't and insist that I'm being unreasonable. It's very odd.
@Eris
> Yes, but what if I don't?
You state which part specifically you find illogical. Instead of waving in the general direction and saying I'm wrong about something things I never even said.
Defeat the culture and the things OP considers issues, will no longer be issues. I don't care whether the culture is possible or impossible to defeat. Even if you have a definitive prove it would only be tangential to the discussion.
> I am. I am also taking it up with you.
Yes you are taking it up with the whole world, but there is nothing else you care about, including reading what others write.
> Sorry, have we met?
yes I do have memory, unfortunately...
also
> you are condenseending
> oh sorry, i forgot you existed
> Even if I do, you pretend I don't and insist that I'm being unreasonable. It's very odd.
keep asserting
>You state which part specifically you find illogical.
I do that.
>I don't care whether the culture is possible or impossible to defeat.
You should care if your ideas are possible.
>Even if you have a definitive prove it would only be tangential to the discussion.
What? How?
>Yes you are taking it up with the whole world, but there is nothing else you care about, including reading what others write.
Bro you seem to have a lot of pent up aggression. I have been perfectly reasonable in this thread and you're mad for some reason. Calm down.
@Eris
> I do that.
you commented on the defeat the culture part, which was a concluding summary. If that's what you wish to comment on one must assume that up to that point you agreed with the presented. If not than at least point out the first thing you disagree with, otherwise you arguing against a basic logical deduction with an assertion. Mind you an assertion even if directed at the specific is still not a logical argument, but it you are precise it might help me figure out what hidden secrets of your glorious mind you're so incapable of expressing directly.
If you have problem with the premise of issues in the OP, that has nothing to do with what I wrote, so take it up with the OP directly, instead of quoting me and pretending I said things I didn't say.
> What? How?
because logic 101, proving the impossibility of a precondition does not render the theorem illogical. You are the only one in this thread who is concerned to prove anything impossible. There is an implicit assumption that everything that is not definitively proven impossible is possible, and that is just eating you up inside it seems, and so far you appear to be unable to do anything about it other that asserting you beliefs.
> Bro you seem to have a lot of pent up aggression. I have been perfectly reasonable in this thread and you're mad for some reason. Calm down.
I'm referring to our previous discussion, because you're mirroring it here in your behavior. It literally doesn't matter what you are talking about you just do the same thing, so I feel the need to jump ahead and speed things up. You also exhibited a tendency to repeat the same assertions over and over again, so it really helps push ahead and cut to chase. But yeah sure I'm so angry, omg, I'm about to make death treats, oooh, just you wait!
Not sure I can weigh in, because you two lost me early in the thread. I simply don’t understand well many of your sentences, I’m sorry.
Replying only to one of the few points I understood, early on:
“Defeat this culture, and all your men issues, which are consequences of objectification of women, will largely go away.”
As I’ve argued before, that trick won’t fly.
Men’s issues are not “consequences of objectification of women” (in the same way that women’s issues are not a consequence of the disposability of men). To think that men die younger and more violently, after more school failure and fewer university degrees, and much higher rates of addiction, homelessness, incarceration and suicide because women are objectified is delusional or malevolent.
In any case, if “defeating” “this culture” (whatever that means) actually fixed both men’s issues and women’s issues, then we all should be focusing on men’s issues at least as much as we care about women’s issues.
Politicians should talk about them and approve subsidies and campaigns aimed at improving the situation of men, the media should run shows and sections specifically about that, the justice system should be reformed to fix its bias against men, educational methods should be revised to be more inclusive of boys and their needs, social media should be flooded with empathy and support for men every other day, etc.
@Eris Your simple comment was acknowledged as your opinion and belief, but you couldn't let it go, and being unable to present any logical arguments of your own, resorted to asserting that I hold the opposite opinion and belief, when I expressed no opinions or beliefs in my reply that have anything to do with your assertion.
> I presented the theorem and nothing else
You presented objectives for how society ought to be, you presented problems you identify in society, and you presented clear calls to action on what you think can be done to solve those alleged problems.
All of which are opinions I can and do disagree with you on.
>points out a logical error in the OPs line of thinking, as they focus on the symptoms instead of causes.
Then I'm pointing out the logical error in both of your lines of thinking, as you are looking at the "symptoms" and "causes" of something that is not actually a problem. Look at your premises.
@Eris A premise can't be a logical error. Just like an assertion is not a logical argument. You either accept them or you do not in a given context. I accept the premise of the OP for the purposes of logical discussion. If you do not accept the premise you can not have a logical discussion. If you would like to explore the context if which a given premise is a logical conclusion to be argues over, then feel free to write your own essay, and if it's interesting enough someone might respond.
>A premise can't be a logical error.
Basing "good" logic on false premises is how people are wrong 99% of the time.
No one gives a shit how good your theorizing and reasoning is if it reaches a false conclusion.
>If you do not accept the premise you can not have a logical discussion.
Why on earth do you think this? You can have logical discussions about whether the premise is false, and how that impacts your argument.
> If you would like to explore the context if which a given premise is a logical conclusion to be argues over, then feel free to write your own essay, and if it's interesting enough someone might respond.
If you had done this instead of engaging in a meta-argument about how i'm not arguing the way you want, you would have saved yourself a lot of time, energy, and frustration.
>Basing "good" logic on false premises is how people are wrong 99% of the time.
>No one gives a shit how good your theorizing and reasoning is if it reaches a false conclusion.
> If you had done this instead of engaging in a meta-argument about how i'm not arguing the way you want, you would have saved yourself a lot of time, energy, and frustration.
When the logic is bad, you can't reach a conclusion, I can't help but point it out. The rest of your problems of finding the ultimate truth and god I don't care about, again.
> Why on earth do you think this? You can have logical discussions about whether the premise is false, and how that impacts your argument.
Because that's how logic works, if something is presented as a premise in a given context you can't logically argue with it in that context, that the meaning of the word premise. Don't thank me for another basic language lesson. Examining the premises is what meta discussion is and you are the only one doing that, and it's not even my premises yet you keep implying that they are mine, when all I did is hypothetically assume them to be true to present a logical argument, in the fashion of "if that's true, then".
>Because that's how logic works, if something is presented as a premise in a given context you can't logically argue with it in that context, that the meaning of the word premise
Nothing is compelling you to just accept any premise someone offers, that's not how reasonable discussion works. This is a rule you made up.
What if instead of limiting the context of the discussion to only people who agree with you, you didn't?
@Eris I don't care if you agree with me, you are the only one who has a problem with that.
@Eris I'm pointing out a logical error in the OP, I have no clue what you are doing. Evangelizing or something.
I am doing exactly what you are doing.
@Eris no you are having a religious meta rant on how the OPs premise is wrong, nothing to do with logic presented in OP or my reply.
@Eris literally look up the definition of the word
@Eris expand that,
"an assertion which forms a basis of theory". You can not have a logical argument within the theory if you reject the premise. I'm presenting a logical argument within the theory of the OP. If you want to examine the premises of the OP, stop quoting me, go quote the OP and ask them about their premises. I don't care, I assumed them to be true for the purpose presenting and argument in the form of "if premise, then conclusion". But that as many other thing I presume is once again, incomprehensible to you.
>You can not have a logical argument within the theory if you reject the premise.
No, but you can have a logical argument that isn't within the theory.
>If you want to examine the premises of the OP, stop quoting me, go quote the OP and ask them about their premises.
You are both @'d in my posts. I am @ing everyone in the thread. I AM taking it up with OP, retard.
>now you are playing word games to save your skin...
Bro that's what you're doing. I'm replying to your word games.
>contradicting A does not contradict the theorem once again
No, but it contradicts you and your argument.
Do we care about logic, or do we care about the topic being discussed?