A Civilized Discussion on Gender Issues

[Alcofribas]

Here is the OKCupid study which proves men are judged by women for their looks more than women are judged by men

 

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/

 

goog god man, just fucking go outside and look with your own eyes. are you seeing an overwhelming amount of attractive men dating ugly chicks? i didn't think so.

 

also, your use of the word "faggot" in a thread where you're defending men's rights is exceptionally hypocritical, especially after you posted an article about the prolific instances of prison rape.* basically, it'd be like if you were defending black rights and then called some one a nigger. it's quite puzzling how you don't realize this.

 

* i continue to find it odd that you have nothing to say in response to my points about the rape article you posted. you clearly made a bold faced lie and then covered it up with a "semantic" argument. furthermore, you tried to make a sweeping claim that rape is a more serious problem for men then it is for women by citing an article which reported that the instances of men raping people were much higher than previously thought, which of course completely obliterates your own opinion on the issue.

[encey]

So my use of the word faggot is discriminatory against homosexual men and a horrible thing to do, yet the MRA movement with lots of statistical evidence for their cause is "pathetic" ?

 

Bit contradictory there to first say using a particular word as an insult is so horrible, then to say that even suggesting men are oppressed at all and to support progression towards equality for males, is "pathetic"

 

A contradiction is a statement of the form 'p and not-p.' 'The MRA movement is pathetic and some men are faggots' is not a contradiction; you can consistently assert both at the same time. Even if you meant 'hypocritical' your claim wouldn't be true, for the same reason.

[goDel]

yeah i also don't understand your insistence on knowing the person's background and agenda godel. zeff brought some arguments, referred to some articles, those have been criticized and reframed and so on. why does it matter if he's trolling/is a misogynist/have been raped by (black) women etc if those don't interfere with his following of the rules of (sort of) scientific argument. does the knowledge of the fact that wagner was an anti-semite objectively affect the quality of his already composed music ?

 

The only thing I was insistent about was the importance of where people are coming from in a discussion like this (or any discussion for that matter). He argued otherwise. I smelled a fire and called him out. Now he wants me to tell him what the fire is all about. Tbh, I was pretty much done after my first post. I basically told everything right there, but he wanted a discussion nevertheless. Well, if you want one, you can get one. No probs. But it was basically dancing around the basic premisse. So other than a remark that he was biased followed by a quick denial (not biased, and not relevant either), it went nowhere. It's just a sketchy story, if you ask me.

 

The Wagner music point is moot. In your metaphor the argument is about Wagners reason for taking the point of an anti-semite position. Wagners music is not im frage (is besides the point). And never was in the first place. Zeff takes a position in this discussion, and I suspect he has his personal reasons. But he thinks that those are irrelevant for this discussion and basically denies he has any personal reasons other than "the greater good". That's it. No need to fuss. You can basically keep on discussing about feminism. Sorry for the interruption and all.

[eugene]

of course he has personal reasons and is biased in some ways, but you can judge the product itself, i.e. the arguments he produces on their own merit. think of it as a game, we receive some arguments from an anonymous being that may have some scientific basis and our goal is to refute them by following very particular rules.

[goDel]

have you actually read my posts?

[eugene]

im referring to this one

It is completely relevant. Why wouldn't it be relevant? If we're discussing the israeli-palestina conflict, would you think it would be irrelevant to know that eugene actually lives in israel whenever he defends the israeli point of view? It creates the necessary context. And I also disagree with your earlier point the personal experiences don't count (eg. Your pretty blunt response to rixxx). They do count, even if they need to be put in a -again! - context.

If personal experiences or context don't matter, I feel this discussion doesn't matter. Because it's basically a match about who's the best in using google and who has read the most articles. Good luck with your meaningless pissing contest though.

[goDel]

think of it as a game, we receive some arguments from an anonymous being that may have some scientific basis and our goal is to refute them by following very particular rules.

 

 

 

If personal experiences or context don't matter, I feel this discussion doesn't matter. Because it's basically a match about who's the best in using google and who has read the most articles. Good luck with your meaningless pissing contest though.

 

 

So your point is we agree?

[eugene]

i think it matters very much, it's an important contemporary topic and those kind of arguments can expose you to new information, new ways of thinking about the topic, challenge your ideas and theories (even if no one usually admits it) and so on.

[zlemflolia]

of course he has personal reasons and is biased in some ways, but you can judge the product itself, i.e. the arguments he produces on their own merit. think of it as a game, we receive some arguments from an anonymous being that may have some scientific basis and our goal is to refute them by following very particular rules.

this exactly

 

i could be a hardcore feminist at heart - it wouldn't make my arguments wrong if I'm arguing against feminism

[zlemflolia]

If anything I think debates like this should ideally have no identification of who says what, whatsoever. No usernames or avas, just pure arguments on their own merit

[awepittance]

 

Is this a testament to your current lack of sleep? He changed his name in the middle of one of those heated discussions. Quite humorously, I might add.

 

Unrelated, but for actual safety reasons he opted to do it. If you want I can explain it to you over PM

[awepittance]

that video is worth its own thread. Shocking stuff.

who posted it, where did it go? I'm assuming it's been taken down, probably not from youtube right?

[Adieu]

 

that video is worth its own thread. Shocking stuff.

who posted it, where did it go? I'm assuming it's been taken down, probably not from youtube right?

 

 

compson got banned cause of it. I imagine they took the post down.

[Hoodie]

fucking hell has this tread reduced to posting videos of rape? ok yep Im outta here.

 

what's wrong with a video of rape exactly? rape is relevant to any discussion about inequality since it's a way that people assert power over one another. it would be like posting a video of people shooting each other if you were talking about war.

 

maybe the context that he posted it in wasn't the best, but there's nothing wrong with video footage of heinous acts.

[Guest Lucy Faringold]

 

fucking hell has this tread reduced to posting videos of rape? ok yep Im outta here.

 

what's wrong with a video of rape exactly? rape is relevant to any discussion about inequality since it's a way that people assert power over one another. it would be like posting a video of people shooting each other if you were talking about war.

 

maybe the context that he posted it in wasn't the best, but there's nothing wrong with video footage of heinous acts.

 

read the rules

[rixxx]

 

 

fucking hell has this tread reduced to posting videos of rape? ok yep Im outta here.

 

what's wrong with a video of rape exactly? rape is relevant to any discussion about inequality since it's a way that people assert power over one another. it would be like posting a video of people shooting each other if you were talking about war.

 

maybe the context that he posted it in wasn't the best, but there's nothing wrong with video footage of heinous acts.

 

read the rules

 

 

 

yeah....

 

 

It was completely unnecessary to post the video and I think it's disrespectful to the poor girl that was filmed. I know if I was that girl I would hate to see it had been uploaded to youtube.

 

It's just common decency.

[Guest zaphod]

 

fucking hell has this tread reduced to posting videos of rape? ok yep Im outta here.

 

what's wrong with a video of rape exactly? rape is relevant to any discussion about inequality since it's a way that people assert power over one another. it would be like posting a video of people shooting each other if you were talking about war.

 

maybe the context that he posted it in wasn't the best, but there's nothing wrong with video footage of heinous acts.

 

 

seriously, read the rules

[joshuatxuk]

 

 

that video is worth its own thread. Shocking stuff.

who posted it, where did it go? I'm assuming it's been taken down, probably not from youtube right?

 

 

compson got banned cause of it. I imagine they took the post down.

 

 

oh that's why he got banned

 

huh

 

[zlemflolia]

 

So my use of the word faggot is discriminatory against homosexual men and a horrible thing to do, yet the MRA movement with lots of statistical evidence for their cause is "pathetic" ?

 

Bit contradictory there to first say using a particular word as an insult is so horrible, then to say that even suggesting men are oppressed at all and to support progression towards equality for males, is "pathetic"

 

A contradiction is a statement of the form 'p and not-p.' 'The MRA movement is pathetic and some men are faggots' is not a contradiction; you can consistently assert both at the same time. Even if you meant 'hypocritical' your claim wouldn't be true, for the same reason.

 

lol i didnt see this post

perfectly put

[zlemflolia]

of course he has personal reasons and is biased in some ways, but you can judge the product itself, i.e. the arguments he produces on their own merit. think of it as a game, we receive some arguments from an anonymous being that may have some scientific basis and our goal is to refute them by following very particular rules.

this i cannot fucking stress enough

 

so many people don't understand the basics of arguing in a syllogistically logical way. Their points are rife with blatant fallacies and it's just ridiculous.

 

yeah if you can make your point of view seem legit through doing this more people may join your side, but it doesn't mean you're making a valid argument and it doesn't make you intelligent. It makes you completely anti-intellectual by definition

[joshuatxuk]

 

fucking hell has this tread reduced to posting videos of rape? ok yep Im outta here.

 

what's wrong with a video of rape exactly? rape is relevant to any discussion about inequality since it's a way that people assert power over one another. it would be like posting a video of people shooting each other if you were talking about war.

 

maybe the context that he posted it in wasn't the best, but there's nothing wrong with video footage of heinous acts.

 

 

yeah I think this a reasonable point, and it was probably the manner in which is posted it

 

I remember a year or two ago a thread being posted with a HD video in Pakistan of a man literally being shot point blank on camera by police/paramilitary forces and bleeding to death. It was probably deleted but I don't think anyone was banned.

[luke viia]

 

of course he has personal reasons and is biased in some ways, but you can judge the product itself, i.e. the arguments he produces on their own merit. think of it as a game, we receive some arguments from an anonymous being that may have some scientific basis and our goal is to refute them by following very particular rules.

this i cannot fucking stress enough

 

so many people don't understand the basics of arguing in a syllogistically logical way. Their points are rife with blatant fallacies and it's just ridiculous.

 

yeah if you can make your point of view seem legit through doing this more people may join your side, but it doesn't mean you're making a valid argument and it doesn't make you intelligent. It makes you completely anti-intellectual by definition

 

 

You've got to be kidding. Look at the "logic" you responded with when I asked if your man-on-man prison rape study actually made your feminism-is-nonsense case stronger:

 

 

I simply said that males being a victim of rape is more of a problem than women being the victims of rape, since the majority of rape victims are males

Unless of course you want to say that since it's male-on-male the victim can be blamed because his gender is the same as the perpetrator

In which case it'd be equally alright to say black-on-black theft is justifiable and not a problem which I'm sure you'd disagree with.

 

Your argument:

 

1. Male on male rape is more important than male on female rape, because the former happens more often.

2. "Unless of course" you want to blame the victim. (????)

3. If you blame the victim, you are also saying that black-on-black theft is justified and not a problem. (????)

 

Where's the logic here? How did you get from line 1 to line 2? The first line is a strict game of numbers, and the claim is that # of rape instances in prisons > number of male-on-female rape cases, therefore men are the bigger victims. I really don't follow how you get to the idea that denying your initial claim "blames the victim." It doesn't. What logic did you employ to reach this conclusion? I certainly didn't suggest it in my initial post to you. And furthermore how did you arrive at line 3? It would be "equally alright" to blame the victims of "black on black theft" (black people, I guess?) since I've somehow suggested that "men are to blame for being raped in prison"? Where is the logic in this argument?

[LimpyLoo]

 

of course he has personal reasons and is biased in some ways, but you can judge the product itself, i.e. the arguments he produces on their own merit. think of it as a game, we receive some arguments from an anonymous being that may have some scientific basis and our goal is to refute them by following very particular rules.

this i cannot fucking stress enough

 

so many people don't understand the basics of arguing in a syllogistically logical way. Their points are rife with blatant fallacies and it's just ridiculous.

 

yeah if you can make your point of view seem legit through doing this more people may join your side, but it doesn't mean you're making a valid argument and it doesn't make you intelligent. It makes you completely anti-intellectual by definition

 

 

Your ideas on gender inequality are whack--this has been established--now we're just trying to figure out why you hold such ideas.

[zlemflolia]

 

 

of course he has personal reasons and is biased in some ways, but you can judge the product itself, i.e. the arguments he produces on their own merit. think of it as a game, we receive some arguments from an anonymous being that may have some scientific basis and our goal is to refute them by following very particular rules.

this i cannot fucking stress enough

 

so many people don't understand the basics of arguing in a syllogistically logical way. Their points are rife with blatant fallacies and it's just ridiculous.

 

yeah if you can make your point of view seem legit through doing this more people may join your side, but it doesn't mean you're making a valid argument and it doesn't make you intelligent. It makes you completely anti-intellectual by definition

 

 

You've got to be kidding. Look at the "logic" you responded with when I asked if your man-on-man prison rape study actually made your feminism-is-nonsense case stronger:

 

 

I simply said that males being a victim of rape is more of a problem than women being the victims of rape, since the majority of rape victims are males

Unless of course you want to say that since it's male-on-male the victim can be blamed because his gender is the same as the perpetrator

In which case it'd be equally alright to say black-on-black theft is justifiable and not a problem which I'm sure you'd disagree with.

 

Your argument:

 

1. Male on male rape is more important than male on female rape, because the former happens more often.

2. "Unless of course" you want to blame the victim. (????)

3. If you blame the victim, you are also saying that black-on-black theft is justified and not a problem. (????)

 

Where's the logic here? How did you get from line 1 to line 2? The first line is a strict game of numbers, and the claim is that # of rape instances in prisons > number of male-on-female rape cases, therefore men are the bigger victims. I really don't follow how you get to the idea that denying your initial claim "blames the victim." It doesn't. What logic did you employ to reach this conclusion? I certainly didn't suggest it in my initial post to you. And furthermore how did you arrive at line 3? It would be "equally alright" to blame the victims of "black on black theft" (black people, I guess?) since I've somehow suggested that "men are to blame for being raped in prison"? Where is the logic in this argument?

 

It's called arguing preemptively

 

I never said you said those things. I'm saying that's one potential counter some people may be thinking, so I addressed it ahead of time.

 

 

 

of course he has personal reasons and is biased in some ways, but you can judge the product itself, i.e. the arguments he produces on their own merit. think of it as a game, we receive some arguments from an anonymous being that may have some scientific basis and our goal is to refute them by following very particular rules.

this i cannot fucking stress enough

 

so many people don't understand the basics of arguing in a syllogistically logical way. Their points are rife with blatant fallacies and it's just ridiculous.

 

yeah if you can make your point of view seem legit through doing this more people may join your side, but it doesn't mean you're making a valid argument and it doesn't make you intelligent. It makes you completely anti-intellectual by definition

 

 

Your ideas on gender inequality are whack--this has been established--now we're just trying to figure out why you hold such ideas.

 

really, how are they "whack"?

 

and what do you think my "ideas" area to begin with? All of my claims have statistical backing.

[luke viia]

You were directly replying to me. Would you please form your argument syllogistically (All A are B, all B are C, therefore all A are C, etc) for me? I think I may be misrepresenting it. Or at least, answer my questions about how you got from one line to the next. (logically, please)