I could twist my neck and give you an explanation about why it's right, but I don't really want to play that game. It's just what I would want with a beloved.
Deleted UserNovember 10, 2017 at 12:43#1231360 likes
I didn't say they were the same thing but that there is a common element which Nietzsche is being critical of.
But I admire Alexander the Great for example. I look up to him, as a great hero, someone who had traits that should be emulated like courage, daring, never say die attitude, etc.
I could twist my neck and give you an explanation about why it's right, but I don't really want to play that game. It's just what I would want with a beloved.
I was actually just curious, but fine. Anyway, the word possession is wrong, there is something about it that lacks the right tone for the way that I view mutual love. When you say the erotic conqueror wants the other to WANT them, not just to be possessed by them it is no different to trying to sell yourself, turning yourself into a commodity and women do this all the time with their appearances as much as men do with economics. If you are pertaining to matters of the heart, the love given to you is a trust, a willingness because the person loves you because you love, for the person that you are and not for what you sell yourself as.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 10, 2017 at 12:55#1231420 likes
When you are attracted to someone sexually - and it happens - but they are also your friend, someone you care about and you want to make happy, someone you admire and love having around, why would that be a bad thing?
It is not that it would be a "bad thing" but is it realistic? Sure. Is it probable? The chances go down. Is it necessary? For some yes and others no.
You openly shared that your family during your childhood was less than an emotionally healthy environment and you did what you needed to do to get out of it. All the more power to you in your pursuit of a healthy relationship (Y) and for having it your way, for there should be NO other way.
I am curious as to who in your life has demonstrated the love that you speak of? Are they a close mentor for you that has shown you the path that will get you there? I am not suggesting that it doesn't exist but I am curious if this is an idea from a book?
As an absolute romantic idealist myself, having come from a less than healthy childhood family, I can relate to the Utopian idea of romantic love far easier than I would like to confess the reality of true love.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 10, 2017 at 13:01#1231440 likes
Depends which sort of erotic conquerer you are talking about. Plenty could care less about the woman wanting them, viewing their exchange purely in terms of how they possessed her for a moment or three. A lot of the could be said to women to want them in a superficial sense, that is, be interested in them enough to have sex, but only as a means to their possession.
The erotic conquerer who is actually interested in someone wanting them isn't entire different in their thought process either. They are treating the desire of the other person as their possession, like it were their own then to take, sustain and hold, by only the measure of their interest.
They think and want the possession of another's heart to be achieved by force.
Of course. Selling yourself means communicating, successfully, who you really are. That's important. If you don't sell yourself, they'll think you are someone different from who you really are.
for the person that you are and not for what you sell yourself as.
I am what I sell myself for. Why would I sell myself for someone who I'm not? That wouldn't be a way for me to possess their heart, it would be an opportunity for whoever I sold myself as, who isn't the real me, to possess their heart. It would frustrate my own purposes.
I mean to one thinks the heart of another at their control.
Like one could make another want them no matter what, without any reference to what the person in question wanted.
Possession exactly like the master over the slave, such that nothing could remove what the master wanted of the other person's wants, such that the person wants could violate the wishes of the master.
For then they are not one: only the one is present, a master who believes the relationship is constituted only in himself, his value and his desire-- a sort of solipsism in which another person is only an image within his own desires.
An account which entirely ignores they have become one in flesh and spirit (if that has happened at all).
Riiight, so like a business deal. They love me because I love them instead of loving me for who I am.
Here we go. Read what I wrote, I said they love you for being loving, not for loving them; they love you for who you are. As said by Fromm which I already said before and again and again... again:
I am what I sell myself for. Why would I sell myself for someone who I'm not? That wouldn't be a way for me to possess their heart, it would be an opportunity for whoever I sold myself as, who isn't the real me, to possess their heart. It would frustrate my own purposes.
Are you saying that those who are selling themselves are giving an accurate depiction of who they are? Society has formed a false image and tactfully sell themselves according to what the general populace dictates, again, like the conventional neurosis of a sick man trying to adapt himself to a sick society. No, you don't need to "sell" yourself, you just need to "be" yourself and nothing more. You are not a commodity and just because the world today functions under the consumerist marketing stratagem, you should stand above it and simply follow the right ideals. A person who is doing the same will see that in you and love you for it.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 10, 2017 at 13:23#1231550 likes
I don't think that has anything to do with it. The question isn't if one scared to belong to another or couldn't be the slave to a master; I think is perfectly coherent. Just as slaves can think of themselves as belonging to another, I think people could genuinely think of themselves as belonging to another, even in the sense of their desires.
The issue is that the possession/slave/master account is a is failed description of love; it claims there is only one when in fact there are two who are one.
In other words: what you are describing is a notion of a property right/a possession always forced to a master's wish, rather than love.
Deleted UserNovember 10, 2017 at 13:23#1231560 likes
:-}
BuxtebuddhaNovember 10, 2017 at 13:57#1231580 likes
If I'm in love with someone, the last word I'd ever use would be "possession."
I was actually just curious, but fine. Anyway, the word possession is wrong, there is something about it that lacks the right tone for the way that I view mutual love. When you say the erotic conqueror wants the other to WANT them, not just to be possessed by them it is no different to trying to sell yourself, turning yourself into a commodity and women do this all the time with their appearances as much as men do with economics. If you are pertaining to matters of the heart, the love given to you is a trust, a willingness because the person loves you because you love, for the person that you are and not for what you sell yourself as.
A hopeless romantic you are. It strikes me as something that could never been forged in the real world, mostly because it's ill defined and framed in idealistic terms. You demand to be loved before making love and you want to be loved for who you are and not what you are. To be loved is tied to friendship, and what friendship is is probably such a spiritual concept it can't be explained. I'm doubting it resembles the friendships I have with my male friends in non-romantic contexts, and what I am and who I am seem to be the same things, but I hopeless romantic I am not, so I don't know.
All you've said would make me pat myself on the back if I were your father, but I'd also brace myself for the day that this will all unravel when reality collides into this over philosophized worldview that ought be far more pragmatic and mundane than you want to accept. We can quote all the philosophers back to the beginning of time, but the reason you shouldn't have sex with a guy who doesn't care about you is because you'll get hurt, and it will really suck. It won't be just the eating a carton of ice-cream sort of suck, but it'll be the feeling stupid, used, broken hearted sort of hurt that you'll remember for way too long. Whether you think you should love the person first or not, the truth is that if you sleep with the guy, you're going to develop feelings whether you like it or not. I'm sure there are women out there who can have sex without ever developing feelings and I'm told they exist, but I'm also told unicorns exist as well. Quoting Thorongil
Forgive me, but I still don't see a reason. Why should one become romantically engaged with someone, as opposed to just remaining friends? What does romantic love, whatever it is, add to friendship that makes it superior to the latter? To be blunt, I don't think it adds much of anything, save sexual intimacy. Besides this, I wouldn't know how to distinguish the two. I have seen Agustino and others try to argue that sex in a healthy relationship (i.e. among friends) is this great, beautiful, mysterious thing, but I don't see it. All I see is the satisfaction of an instinct.
Developing friendships itself is the satisfaction of an instinct, so why do it? Go be a hermit and live in the woods, unless, of course, that too is your instinct, in which case you shouldn't do it because satisfying instincts is bad. There are other philosophical positions other than masochism, you know. Quoting TimeLine
Yes! It is almost an absolute must but in saying that how you are romantic is not descriptive; so that rubbish people do with giving each other flowers and chocolates or celebrating anniversaries, none of which I appreciate at all, well maybe except flowers, pink ones in particular, but that is because I grow flowers and love the smell of flowers. But, I digress. The point is that once you are in an intimate relationship, an expression of how you know the person you love by showing them is a beautiful thing. Without it, it would be rather clinical, no?
Really now? Your boyfriend could forget your birthday, not buy you a Christmas present, and never send you flowers as long as he remembered to bang you every night really good? How about this, if your boyfriend forgets all that stuff, he's not going to be having sex with you, and that he'll remember. Sure, that may be true for other girls, but not you. Ok Madam Unicorn.
If I'm in love with someone, the last word I'd ever use would be "possession."
Have you ever been in love? Being in love is full of possession talk, in my experience, e.g., you are mine, I am yours. It might be a kind of metaphor though.
Otherwise, everyone just listen to Hanover and be done with it.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 10, 2017 at 14:21#1231630 likes
Have you ever been in love? Being in love is full of possession talk, in my experience, e.g., you are mine, I am yours. It might be a kind of metaphor though.
I have, and I don't like the implications that the term possession brings. It's like how people say that they've "fallen in love." Fallen? Like, you fell down a flight of stairs? That's not very romantic to me, even though I understand what most mean when they say that, I think.
Are you saying that we ought to pursue an intimate relationship but how this intimacy or romance is applied is relative?
No, I'm not saying that [I]we[/I] ought to do [i]anything[/I], because we're not all the same. I'm saying that [I]some[/I] people ought to do [I]something[/I], and [i]other[/I] people ought to [i]something else[/I], depending on circumstance.
But I admire Alexander the Great for example. I look up to him, as a great hero, someone who had traits that should be emulated like courage, daring, never say die attitude, etc.
Reply to Agustino No! Russian dwarf hamster! I think. Not even sure anymore, but it looks familiar. I'm a little rusty on my rodent identification ability.
Developing friendships itself is the satisfaction of an instinct, so why do it? Go be a hermit and live in the woods, unless, of course, that too is your instinct, in which case you shouldn't do it because satisfying instincts is bad. There are other philosophical positions other than masochism, you know.
I wouldn't say those are instincts, but even if they are, my point is that they, like romantic love, require justification beyond appealing to their being "natural." It might be very natural for a psychopath to feel like murdering people, but that doesn't justify murder.
Reply to Agustino I don't understand the reaction. Are lovers not also friends? In today's sexually bizarre world, I realize that people who hate each other often end up having sex, but normatively speaking, most people who are married or romantically engaged are friends with their partner. They often are friends first, and only later develop other attachments that are packed into the notion of romantic love.
When you are attracted to someone sexually - and it happens - but they are also your friend, someone you care about and you want to make happy, someone you admire and love having around, why would that be a bad thing?
Trying to turn the tables on me I see! I wouldn't say it's a bad thing. But just because something isn't wrong doesn't make it right either. So I'm still missing justification.
But I read this as saying that there is no reason to become romantically engaged. Thus, if you desire this, and correct me if I'm wrong on that score, are you saying you don't know why?
Well, it's sort of like, why do you want justification? If something is natural, it needs no justification. You only need justification when changing course from what is natural. If it's natural to sleep, you're not going to ask "what's the justification for sleep?" - you'll ask the opposite - "what's the justification for not sleeping?"
Well, it's sort of like, why do you want justification? If something is natural, it needs no justification.
As I have pointed out several times now, this commits the naturalistic fallacy. There are plenty of things that come naturally to one which it would be positively immoral, unwise, or uncouth to do.
As I have pointed out several times now, it commits the naturalistic fallacy. There are plenty of things that come naturally to one which it would be positively immoral, unwise, or uncouth to do.
:-} It's not about coming naturally to "one" but rather coming naturally to human beings as such.
We're on a philosophy forum. No question, including this one, is off limits, and I think it's a perfectly legitimate one.
Every question makes prior assumptions. That's what some good philosophy essay I read many years ago said, and I agree. So philosophy is as much about what questions we ask as it is about what answers we give. If you are looking for an answer to a stupid question, you're unlikely to find it.
It was by an author whose family name started with C. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? It was an essay on the history of philosophy, relatively recent author (past 100 years), and one of the main points is that every question asked presupposes that something else is true.
If you are looking for an answer to a stupid question, you're unlikely to find it.
I don't think asking why one ought to sleep is a stupid question. It's one way of asking why one ought to live, for the predictable answer one will receive is that one ought to sleep because it is necessary to live. The question of whether to be or not to be is not stupid.
It's one way of asking why one ought to live, for the predictable answer one will receive is that one ought to sleep because it is necessary to live.
I'm not sure if it's necessary to sleep to live. The mechanism that governs our physical need for sleep isn't well understood. There are claims of people who never sleep.
So a better question isn't why should you sleep, but rather what makes sleep physically necessary for the functioning of the organism. Likewise, a better question isn't why you should have sex with a person in marriage, but what role sex as an activity plays in a marriage between people - what emotional needs it meets, etc.
This explains nothing. It's just a declarative statement. Why is it incorrect? And what does romantic engagement depend on?
Well, when you quote me out of context like that, then it will look that way. However, in truth, I did explain myself, just not to your satisfaction, and I don't comment here for your satisfaction. If you want further explanation, then simply request it instead of playing games.
I have already answered your questions in a reply to Timeline. It depends on the person, and it depends on circumstance. Use your imagination.
Reply to Sapientia Oy, you are from UK. What gift should I send to a very good UK male friend for his birthday? Is it okay to send chocolates? >:O They are quite cheap and can be ordered straight online... but it seems strange to send chocolates to another guy >:O
I wouldn't say those are instincts, but even if they are, my point is that they, like romantic love, require justification beyond appealing to their being "natural." It might be very natural for a psychopath to feel like murdering people, but that doesn't justify murder.
I didn't appeal to nature to justify sexuality. I only pointed out that the suppression of desire has no intrinsic value. Deriving pleasure from pain is masochistic. The reason you shouldn't kill has nothing to do with whether it makes you happy or not. I've not argued hedonism.
Reply to Agustino Yes, I agree that it seems a little weird, although it really shouldn't. Alternatively, you could give him yourself, entirely naked, with a red ribbon wrapped around your doodah.
Reply to Sapientia >:O I'm actually asking seriously, I really must get a gift. Sending myself over there is kind of expensive.
I could order a simple thing like a book off Amazon, the trouble with that is that I need a way to control the date it gets delivered on, which I cannot do on Amazon. At least not accurately. I've had trouble with it in the past, very bad service for delivering on time. Is there a book ordering thing in UK that delivers on time or where you can arrange a delivery date?
Send him a gift card. He's a guy. If you give him something thoughtful, you'll just make it awkward. If you had a gf, she could send him something from both of you and you'd have sufficient cover to not appear gay, but you don't, which will make it super gay to do chocolates as a single dude.
Reply to Agustino I don't know. If it was me, I'd like a book. More specifically, a nonfiction book on a topic that I'm interested in, which means there's plenty to choose from.
These days I get my books in digital form from an app on my mobile, and before that, it was Amazon, so that probably doesn't help.
Just shop around and you'll find something. I wasn't even shopping for any presents, but I found a Perpetual Disappointment Diary - "Now With Added Disappointment" - in Sainsburys, and I bought it because I thought that it would make a good Christmas present.
In today's sexually bizarre world, I realize that people who hate each other often end up having sex, but normatively speaking, most people who are married or romantically engaged are friends with their partner.
Exactly when was the historical era of sexually appropriate behavior and relationships? My point being that you aren't speaking of normative behavior. You're speaking of idealistic behavior. That is, lovers ought be friends versus lovers are friends. I generally agree, although lover friendship isn't the same as buddy friendship which isn't the same as parent/child friendship etc.
You should like who you love, sure. That'd be best. I don't really like my brother though, but I love him at some level.
A hopeless romantic you are. It strikes me as something that could never been forged in the real world, mostly because it's ill defined and framed in idealistic terms. You demand to be loved before making love and you want to be loved for who you are and not what you are. To be loved is tied to friendship, and what friendship is is probably such a spiritual concept it can't be explained. I'm doubting it resembles the friendships I have with my male friends in non-romantic contexts, and what I am and who I am seem to be the same things, but I hopeless romantic I am not, so I don't know.
Friendships itself is a powerful expression of this idealism. I am thinking more along the lines of Thoreau's practical idealism, where in friendships there is the shared love of certain principles and virtue; you cannot be friends with someone who does not correspond to these conditions you believe in or adhere to. In non-romantic contexts, these principles would mean things like trust, humour, equality etc., and these are advantageous because you have set conditions that attract friends with whom there is a common devotion to these ideals.
When you meet a friend, you align your standards with their personality based on these principles, but when you meet a woman it is entirely different; you see only the surface, what they offer you sexually alone and then afterwards try to get to know them, change them, tolerate them etc. Friendships enable us to experience another "person" and thus someone who we recognise as independent and separate from us but united by an idealism, while sexually women become non-person or an object who must correspond to what makes you feel sexual pleasure, thus entirely selfish.
This may not be "forged in the real world" as you say because I am sure that if most men started viewing their partner as their friend, they would probably realise that they do not like their partner at all. I don't why you think it is all that strange that I think friendship comes first.
We can quote all the philosophers back to the beginning of time, but the reason you shouldn't have sex with a guy who doesn't care about you is because you'll get hurt, and it will really suck. It won't be just the eating a carton of ice-cream sort of suck, but it'll be the feeling stupid, used, broken hearted sort of hurt that you'll remember for way too long. Whether you think you should love the person first or not, the truth is that if you sleep with the guy, you're going to develop feelings whether you like it or not. I'm sure there are women out there who can have sex without ever developing feelings and I'm told they exist, but I'm also told unicorns exist as well.
In the end, it is my preference that matters and meeting someone who shares the same preferences; that is why I would prefer to develop feelings for someone as my friend first rather than developing feelings for someone after sleeping with him only to find out that he is deranged. I do not agree with the highly imaginative historical approach either and that attitude is really a justified form of an enlarged egotism. Mine was formerly also problematic, I admit that, as the primary reason I pushed men away was to protect and prevent myself from being hurt and I have only recently become conscious that these preventative measures were too extreme that I never let anyone in at all; I believe that may have been intentional because I was in "flight" mode. I have been learning the "fight" mode and have been challenging myself by being present but it doesn't mean I am wrong in my decision to seek friendship first.
Really now? Your boyfriend could forget your birthday, not buy you a Christmas present, and never send you flowers as long as he remembered to bang you every night really good? How about this, if your boyfriend forgets all that stuff, he's not going to be having sex with you, and that he'll remember. Sure, that may be true for other girls, but not you. Ok Madam Unicorn.
Yes, really. I would never celebrate "anniversaries" because I don't set dates and times to my experiences with people, just as much as I would never publish my affections for someone on social networking. It is a superficial show for an audience. Romance is not chocolates and flowers on particular days, it is an affirmation of his love or affection for me on any day, that he values me or admires me is not something that can be written on a $3 card from woolworths. If that makes me madam unicorn (what the fuck?) then fine.
Trying to turn the tables on me I see! I wouldn't say it's a bad thing. But just because something isn't wrong doesn't make it right either. So I'm still missing justification.
The 'right' bit only comes to the fore when the circumstances are right for you and so long as it is not wrong overall, then it is entirely relative. From your perspective, do you not think that family or the community are important? Can that not be a justification? There are only two possible wrongs here: pursing romantic relationships with the wrong person because you follow your sexual instincts or because it is socially welcomed, and the other is to reject the right person for you because it is socially unwelcome or because you refuse to follow your heart because of some said belief. I think the latter is actually evil; if you meet a virtuous and kind woman but abandon the prospect of forming a bond with her, you are doing a great wrong. The door needn't be shut and locked.
But I read this as saying that there is no reason to become romantically engaged. Thus, if you desire this, and correct me if I'm wrong on that score, are you saying you don't know why?
When I say that no one ought to become romantically engaged, it does not mean, again, that the door be shut and locked completely. There is the possibility that you may never meet the right person, or that you are asexual etc., but these need to be acknowledged as the reasons and not by some philosophical justification. You should welcome the prospect but under the right conditions where principles of virtue are the primary impetus in forming a bond with another. I think that men and women who attempt celibacy are learning the strengths of being morally virtuous and controlling the instinctual in their decision-making process, but it is not a life-long regulation of sorts.
That is not a bad idea, thanks. I've also thought about buying him a nice pen with his name engraved on it, guys tend to like such ego boosts, and doesn't seem too gay, nor too expensive :D
If you had a gf, she could send him something from both of you and you'd have sufficient cover to not appear gay, but you don't, which will make it super gay to do chocolates as a single dude.
Hmm, I doubt it would work even if I had a gf, cause my gf would have to at least know him (he's from the UK, so unlikely). Otherwise, it would still be strange if my girlfriend sent him a present from both of us >:O
Oh, and I forgot to mention that the chocolates would come with a gift card too >:O >:O >:O - even gayer together >:O
I don't know. If it was me, I'd like a book. More specifically, a nonfiction book on a topic that I'm interested in, which means there's plenty to choose from.
I wasn't even shopping for any presents, but I found a Perpetual Disappointment Diary - "Now With Added Disappointment" - in Sainsburys, and I bought it because I thought that it would make a good Christmas present.
Whether you think you should love the person first or not, the truth is that if you sleep with the guy, you're going to develop feelings whether you like it or not.
Trump Says Putin ‘Means It’ About Not Meddling in U.S. Elections
Well, I guess that settles that. We should apply that to other areas too. I can just see that reporter: "There you have it folks. The murderer went out of his way to deny he killed anyone so he must be innocent."
I wasn't even shopping for any presents, but I found a Perpetual Disappointment Diary - "Now With Added Disappointment" - in Sainsburys, and I bought it because I thought that it would make a good Christmas present.
Oh yes, I'm buying a couple of those for presents. Definitely. Along with Modern Toss: Mindless Violence Colouring Book and F*ck That: An Honest Meditation by Jason Headley. Also by Jason, Five Give Up the Booze (Enid Blyton for Grown Ups) ...
Give up alcohol you say? Why, of course they can! Talk about an easy challenge! Five old friends set about this simple task and find all of a sudden that: the days are longer; they get to see each other for who they really are; the empty laughter of ordinary conversation is so much harder to fake. Yes, they're saving money and losing weight, but the world itself seems to take on a slow, dreary inevitability. Soon they begin to snap at each other, and then fight - until they begin to wonder, have the Five at last found the challenge that will defeat them?
BuxtebuddhaNovember 11, 2017 at 21:16#1233960 likes
Yes, really. I would never celebrate "anniversaries" because I don't set dates and times to my experiences with people, just as much as I would never publish my affections for someone on social networking.
Oh, but you do post pictures of your baked goods for all to see and admire and oogle over and make you feel good about your accomplishments, >:O O:)
Oh, but you do post pictures of your baked goods for all to see and admire and oogle over and make you feel good about your accomplishments, >:O O:)
With saliva dripping by our cheeks, falling down to the blood-stained shoes of the Empress of the known world TimeLine? >:O I have a gut feeling that TimeLine would be a ruthless dic-tator >:)
Her first order would be entitled "The Liquidation of Agustino" :D - it would entail using the newest technology available to set Agustino free so that he can fly by liquifying him, and then vaporizing him in the scorching sun.
Reply to Buxtebuddha At least I don't publish my fiery biscuits for everone to see. I'm on my way on a roadtrip with friends right now. For @Hanover entitled "The Hiking Queenies"
BuxtebuddhaNovember 11, 2017 at 21:50#1234000 likes
Yes, he had a tantrum after one of our mod decisions then ran away before limping back with his tail between his legs.
Nope. That was me and Thorongil, not Buxters.
Correction: Right, I see. Respect for Buxters has increased now (Y) . Another fellow warrior :D
BuxtebuddhaNovember 11, 2017 at 22:06#1234140 likes
I don't think you mods understand that posting in threads isn't the same as responding to pm's. Unless you have the ability to read pm's, then you can't ban me having productive conversation privately.
Unless you have the ability to read pm's, then you can't ban me having productive conversation privately.
(1) I speculate they may be able to see PMs (I don't see why the administrator of the server can't. I don't imagine Plush alone holds access to the database of the site. If he has access to the database, then at least that person can access PMs for sure - even if somehow the data was encrypted).
(2) If you get banned, I think you can't send PMs anymore.
Why you think we would be intetested in what you and Bustedbuddha blather on about in private is what's funny.
I don't talk with Buxters by PM actually, sorry to disappoint you. The last time he PMed me was about 4 months ago. I didn't even know he left in protest until today.
[quote=Trump]Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me "old," when I would NEVER call him "short and fat?" Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend - and maybe someday that will happen![/quote]
Jesus, you really do have a child for a president.
So without any government, in a state of anarchy over the past few centuries, we'd still have everything we have now in terms of social infrastructure and technology? Is that really your considered analysis?
Hmmm yes. In fact, I think we may very well have more. A state of anarchy doesn't mean that there are no rules, it just means that the rules aren't centralised by one single entity.
Government just appropriates and steals the property of those who actually work, that's why they can run huge and inefficient expenses (military, etc.) without concern. How can people who don't know how things move in this world run it? :s I don't know about the developed world, but here in the developing world, politicians are the worst people you can find - the most incapable, vindictive, etc. If a politician messes up, nothing happens to him. The country can never go bankrupt.
Say a tax inspector comes around to inspect your taxes. Someone who never managed to do anything with his life, is now coming to boss me around and purposefully find faults because I refuse to bribe him. Great. So let's get this straight - this person, the tax inspector, has done nothing productive for anyone. But yet he gets to come as a landlord to take other people's hard earned money? :s Why?
The government should find a way to earn money. Actually earn it, not appropriate other people's profits. I have no problem if government competes in a free market, sells me electricity, etc. or whatever. I don't even have a problem if they make me pay a fixed sum a year to use roads, police, etc. They should operate like a business. Exploit a country's natural resources, infrastructure, etc. and make money.
But to tax my revenue (referring to VAT) or my profits? :s That's ridiculous.
And imagine how easy it would be without taxes. I wouldn't even need to keep records, etc. the way the government wants them. I could just keep records that are actually useful to me - that actually make sense.
Don't be silly, I will support you as moderator as long as you continue to allow me to treat you like Baldrick.
Oh, so you want to do something to me with a pencil... interesting. You must have learned that from Hanover. That's what happens when you spend too much time with him.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 12, 2017 at 13:46#1235660 likes
And the Christmas Carolers are on the morning shows....
Is it a bad thing if I just want to bake cookies and watch Christmas movies instead of taking part in the pressure of the commercialization of this holiday season? :s
Also by Jason, Five Give Up the Booze (Enid Blyton for Grown Ups) ...
I know the book. It was given as a present to my brother during his stint as a reckless drunk. I have [I]Five On Brexit Island[/I]. It's presently sitting across from me on my bookshelf along with my other books.
Reply to Agustino I actually don't watch much TV. I spend most of my days philosophizing and writing perverted stories, at least when I'm not being diverted by Baden's annoying, wandering hands. But they are so warm. So warm. So very warm.
You're such a humorless little lump sometimes. You should get yourself excised. Anyway, it was aimed at Sapientia who's not a conservative and it has nothing to do with you or your political stablemates; I'm sure y'all spread your love over as many animals as you can find. Speaking of stablemates... :-O
AkanthinosNovember 13, 2017 at 01:25#1236840 likes
BuxtebuddhaNovember 13, 2017 at 01:33#1236890 likes
Reply to Thorongil Perhaps he meant "exercised." I think he's calling you fat.
AkanthinosNovember 13, 2017 at 01:46#1236930 likes
Reply to Posty McPostface Our gray one took 5 pounds in the last 3 months. She used to be all fur and bones, and now she looks like a tiny bear cub. The only thing that changed is that we brought in another cat. :-}
Oh, so you want to do something to me with a pencil... interesting. You must have learned that from Hanover. That's what happens when you spend too much time with him.
I don't know, it must be by default because you're European that you seem to just lag behind. I bet your favourite singer for 2017 is Britney Spears, practicing your dance moves in front of the mirror in your high-waisted man undies and fluffy pink headband. :P
I don't know, it must be by default because you're European that you seem to just lag behind. I bet your favourite singer for 2017 is Britney Spears, practicing your dance moves in front of the mirror in your high-waisted man undies and fluffy pink headband.
Of course I lag behind. Last time I watched a movie was like almost 1 year ago I think, and last time I watched TV... like 3-4 years ago? :P
My dog ate a bowl of peanuts. They came out completely undigested, just more aromatic, but just as wonderfully salty and crunchy as when they came out of the jar. I shall sell them under my already successful brand "ShitNuts," with the slogan, "These ain't your grandpa's shit covered nuts."
Your cat is emaciated and its eyes are bulging out its head. I'm sure it's some sort of syndrome it's suffering from.
The better to see you with.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 14, 2017 at 12:19#1240760 likes
@jamalrob
Day 8. I can't seem to find the address you wanted me to send my In law to. Could you kindly post it for me? Oh and did I tell you she loves hiking? I bet with a bit of notice, she could hike all the way to where you are. Impressive for her age, eh?
Reply to TimeLine I'm just laughing at Baden and SLX :D - they want to start a fitness revolution, because only 1% of people have great fitness levels, and they are oppressing the rest of us :D
*Rubs hands gleefully* (No, no idea but...*rubs hands gleefully again*).
StreetlightNovember 15, 2017 at 12:27#1243550 likes
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff We barely mustered the political will to express our desire to treat a subsection of our population with a bit of human dignity. New Zealand will come to their aid before we do.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 15, 2017 at 12:44#1243630 likes
New Zealand and the USA? Why is this even allowed to take place in 2017?
"Australia is under increased pressure to resettle asylum-seekers from Manus Island because that center is due to close on Oct. 31. Australia would need to make alternative arrangements should the bulk of the 800 men still be there by that deadline." Yet the Aussie Government saw it fit to destroy the water tanks they did have, as a child records the crime against the inhumane treatment of any human.
StreetlightNovember 15, 2017 at 12:46#1243650 likes
It's a disgrace and an everlasting wound of shame. Our government - and the majority of the people they represent - will do nothing, and I don't know what would make them.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 15, 2017 at 12:48#1243670 likes
Analytically challenged who can probably solve a practical problem 4 times as fast and better than you can :-} Of course, it's easy to show off and insult others when there's no real standard, and real interaction with reality, to compare our results with.
WOW! Do I have the challenge for you Agustino! Please solve a practical problem like having your mother in law live with you, in a van down by the river (in her best SNL's Chris Farley voice) when this is the FIRST Autumn in 21 years that NicK and I have been without children residing here at the ranch, fulltime anyway.
I will hold my breath waiting on you solution since you can do it 4 times faster than I ever could.
:-O
When a mod is sarcastic towards you, you whine, call it bitter and use every opportunity to seek pity for your "ill-treatment" then you go around deliberately trying to provoke mods with exactly the type of behaviour you criticize, so you can seek more excuses to complain. It's the lowest of the low in terms of forum behaviour.
Reply to Baden You're getting a bit conspiratorial there. Like most of the regulars here, I check the Shoutbox every once in a while and in this case happened upon an unintentionally hilarious and absurd post by SLX which I couldn't let pass. Sorry for interrupting your circle jerk to the Australian vote.
StreetlightNovember 16, 2017 at 02:31#1245550 likes
Nothing conspiratorial about you being a double-dealing whiny asshole.
No, you're a classic hypocrite who cries about poor treatment and then does exactly what he complains about. And what's worse then makes up ridiculous excuses for it such as the accusation that Street's post was absurd. Well guess what? The sarcasm directed at your posts was because they were absurd. If you want to stop sarcasm being directed at you stop doing it yourself, or stop whining about it. That's your binary choice. It's that simple.
Reply to Baden You're desperate. Nothing about my post was bitter. Nor did it attack the person. Rather, the person to whom it was directed is now engaged in hurling crude, infantile profanities in my direction.
Sure, and nothing in the sarcastic posts directed at you was bitter then. Your definition of "bitter" is when a mod does it. And it's not the first time you've pulled this with Street either. Anyway, I'm not interested in a slagging match with you, I'm just informing you your complaints about bitter sarcasm aren't going to be taken seriously any more for obvious reasons.
ProbablyTrueNovember 16, 2017 at 03:15#1245640 likes
Familiarity has certainly bred contempt here. At least among the politically opposed. This site needs more members so the disagreements don't carry from the same people to each and every thread. Disagreement is necessary to the survival of this site, I think. It would be a shame to lose interlocutors over pettiness.
and nothing in the sarcastic posts directed at you was bitter then
Oh but they were. I did not expect a different outcome to the Australian vote. I'm not angry about it. I'm disappointed perhaps, but not angry and never attacked anyone's person. The sarcastic posts on the gun thread were of a distinctly vitriolic character. I was branded as someone unsympathetic to victims of mass murder and even an accomplice to such crimes. If you don't see the difference, that might be because you enthusiastically supported the latter kind of sarcasm.
It wasn't just the gun discussion. Here's an example of a comment by a mod in another discussion which you labelled as "a case in point" of the bitter sarcasm you were complaining about:
StreetlightX;122710:How can anyone take seriously the immediate recourse to fantasies of civil war and fairy tale comparisons to the Nazi state? As if these are the problems? As if these flights of fancy were the immediate points to be addressed? This displacement of reality for fantasy - as if the gravity of the real belonged soley to the latter - is insidious and politically asphyxiating. No one should be taking it seriously except as an example of how not to discuss these issues, of how to unmoor the reality of massive disproportionate death so as to float off into the imagination of conspiratorial delusion. Shameful discussion.
[hide][/hide]
---------------------
I'm not defending bad forum behaviour by anyone including myself, I am saying your complaints of bitter sarcasm are obviously hypocritical, so don't expect them to be taken seriously any more.
That was shown to be a misunderstanding, so I retracted the charge.
Also, I see nothing untoward about posting a humorous GIF. The guy literally dismissed a demonstrable historical fact (which is that the Nazis prohibited Jews from owning guns, while relaxing restrictions on the rest of the German population) by deeming it "fantasy," "insidious," "politically asphyxiating," and "conspiratorial delusion." That kind of reaction is so ridiculous that really only a GIF is appropriate. It still cracks me up.
Reply to Baden You should make it visible by a reveal, by the way, which is what I did so as not to make it distracting. Moreover, it was deleted by a mod for being of "low post quality" (which I said was an apt description of the post to which I used it in reply), so your posting it now for all to see on a loop seems a tad... well, I'll leave it at that.
That kind of reaction is so ridiculous that really only a GIF is appropriate. It still cracks me up.
Exactly how we felt about your comments in the gun discussion although we didn't go as far as to post childish gifs in response, and some of us, including me, took your complaints seriously and decided to tone things down. You'll notice I haven't treated your comments in that way since then. You, on the other hand, have continued to do so. I didn't expect you to admit that or admit you'd done anything wrong but that's your loss.
Reply to Baden I've lost nothing, Baden, save time. I wasn't anticipating having to dig all this up again, but I suppose it has been time well spent for further exposing how you guys operate. Take heart, though, for you're nowhere near as hostile and overwrought as SLX.
I want as much diversity here as possible too. I also welcome feedback and complaints. But not hypocrisy. That's all really. Thorongil will continue to do as he wishes as I suppose.
The guy literally dismissed a demonstrable historical fact (which is that the Nazis prohibited Jews from owning guns, while relaxing restrictions on the rest of the German population) by deeming it "fantasy,"
By the way no, he didn't do that at all. And it's shameful to pretend that he did. What he did was criticize the comparison between the Nazi state and the present situation in America. It's not even ambiguous.
What he was criticize the comparison between the Nazi state and the present situation in America.
... Which is a response to a claim no one made. I brought up the fact in question about Nazi gun control, no one else. He made his post not long after that, so it was clear that he was responding to me. That leaves us with two options: either he meant to respond to what I said, in which case his post is a hysterical denial of a plain historical fact, or he sincerely wanted to make the point you attribute to him here, in which case he is knocking down a strawman and still open to rebuke for the ludicrous verbiage he employed.
... Which is a response to a claim no one made. I brought up the fact in question about Nazi gun control, no one else. He made his post not long after that, so it was clear that he was responding to me. That leaves us with two options: either he meant to respond to what I said, in which case his post is a hysterical denial of a plain historical fact, or he sincerely wanted to make the point you attribute to him here, in which case he is knocking down a strawman and still open to rebuke for the ludicrous verbiage he employed.
I complained about SXL, Baden's and your behaviour in that thread somewhere in feedback as I thought the discussion was less than it could be due to the mudslinging involved aside from the arguments forwarded.
Also, your above summary is not how the point about Nazi Germany came accross. To me, it came across as an argument against stricter gun laws. It wasn't just a fact but a point of argument by extrapolating an historical fact as somehow applying to the USA somewhere and sometime in the possible future. You haven't shown it does. SXL's reply wasn't a denial of a historical fact but the application of it as a valid argument in light of the very real deaths currently caused by gun-crazies in the USA. In that light, he wasn't knocking down a strawman and you should've explained why that possible future is sufficiently likely to be taken into account.
And you cannot do that by saying, see it happened in Germany in the 1930s. On the other hand, I suppose it's good to know you think there's a clear moral, political, cultural and socio-economic equivalence between the USA now and Nazi Germany.
unenlightenedNovember 16, 2017 at 09:04#1246090 likes
Yes, and it was fair criticism. I'm steering clear of those discussions now (the one the quote is from is a more recent one btw). I find it difficult to be patient with the other side on that issue. Maybe, I'll get there eventually.
Also, I see nothing untoward about posting a humorous GIF. The guy literally dismissed a demonstrable historical fact (which is that the Nazis prohibited Jews from owning guns, while relaxing restrictions on the rest of the German population) by deeming it "fantasy," "insidious," "politically asphyxiating," and "conspiratorial delusion." That kind of reaction is so ridiculous that really only a GIF is appropriate. It still cracks me up.
It's just a general rule that we don't allow those kinds of images (except in the off-topic categories like the Lounge). Images are fine if they're actually relevant to the topic, e.g. a graph to show some data, or an optical illusion to discuss perception, but otherwise they're just not acceptable. Same for videos.
We might have been more lax if it weren't for a certain poster constantly using Star Trek gifs as responses. Kinda compelled us to be stricter about it.
Actually, what I said was Hillary deserved to lose and I never supported her. But yes, you were right in your prediction and I was wrong. Well done!
First US election I didn't even do any predicting. That should've been alarm bells enough as I called Obama already on October 25, 2007, and erred on the side of caution with Bush's re-election. I also called Obama the likely first hero of the 21st century if he caught Osama. Seems catching terrorists is "no biggie" though as nobody ever really credits him with it.
I also called Obama the likely first hero of the 21st century if he caught Osama. Seems catching terrorists is "no biggie" though as nobody ever really credits him with it.
Why do you think it was such a big thing?
There were lots of rumors going around that US already effectively knew where he was, they were just waiting for the opportune moment to get him.
There were lots of rumors going around that US already effectively knew where he was, they were just waiting for the opportune moment to get him.
It's not so much that I think it's a big thing but didn't the US invade Afghanistan because the Taliban were harbouring him? So they basically started a war to catch one guy. I would expect Obama to be celebrated more because of that success, after spending several years and a couple of billion dollars.
Yeah, maybe you're some really influential guy, how can I know? :P
Great, then I told the story correctly and I'll leave it at that. :P
EDIT: actually my influencing skills are so terrible at times I cannot even convince my manager he should stuff his gut feelings and listen to reason. Now it's time to change my profile pic...
Well, it seems to me that managers can never be convinced - it's like trying to convince parents. They both view you as the one who should be managed and influenced, not the one who should influence unfortunately :D The ones that can be convinced are rarer - the reasonable ones, that is.
I made no bets regarding Australia and gay marriage, I didn't even know about this until I overheard it on the radio yesterday.
Do you listen to the radio? And here I was thinking you were a hermit who erected a hut with sticks by a pond somewhere in the wormwood forest near Chernobyl, becoming the perverse source of local pride especially for your consummate relationship with your violin.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 16, 2017 at 12:18#1246760 likes
Reply to Michael You guys remove images even when they serve as illustration of a point. Fact is, your rules for image use is fickle and has no logical basis that I can see.
Reply to Buxtebuddha I sympathise with whoever deleted it. Using an image with text in it instead of using plain text is one of the many stupidities of today's internet. One thing I like about this forum is that it's relatively free of such stupidities. If you want us to read a quotation, copy and paste the text. I know what that statue of Aristotle looks like, and I don't see its relevance.
Which is not to say that I would have removed it, myself; it's just my personal feeling on the matter. However I can see how some mods might class it as low post quality, if posted without any other content.
I don't know what's wrong with that. If I can't get my point across in this way, *gives up.*
I wish you wouldn't give up trying to express yourself on the topic of firearms but I cannot fault your decision, for I made the same choice. It was because of the belittling, lack of mutual respect and the self congratulations of a topic "won", followed by a High 5 by a couple members of the staff, that was the final straw for me. When in reality what was really "won" was one more forum member walking away from what could have been a respectful discussion.
I sympathise with whoever deleted it. Using an image with text in it instead of using text is one of the many stupidities of today's internet. One thing I like about this forum is that it's relative free of such stupidities. If you want us to read a quotation, copy and paste the text. I know what that statue of Aristotle looks like, and I don't see its relevance.
This means that images in themselves can't be relevant or appropriate to the topic at hand if the content within the image isn't what's judged.
I wish you wouldn't give up trying to express yourself on the topic of firearms but I cannot fault your decision, for I made the same choice. It was because of the belittling, lack of mutual respect and the self congratulations of a topic "won", a High 5 by a couple members of the staff, when what was really "won" was one more forum member walking away from what could have been a respectful discussion.
I agree completely, Tiff. But, there's only so much one can do when moderators aren't really accountable for their behavior. Slaps on the wrists, moves on...
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 16, 2017 at 13:02#1246980 likes
Familiarity has certainly bred contempt here. At least among the politically opposed. This site needs more members so the disagreements don't carry from the same people to each and every thread. Disagreement is necessary to the survival of this site, I think. It would be a shame to lose interlocutors over pettiness.
Words to consider from a new member
BuxtebuddhaNovember 16, 2017 at 13:03#1246990 likes
Reply to Baden C'mon man. You just got done unbunching your knickers after Thorongil's supposed hypocrisy, :-d
Images are fine if they're actually relevant to the topic,e.g. a graph to show some data, or an optical illusion to discuss perception, but otherwise they're just not acceptable
My eyes are rolling so hard right now that it feels like they're about to pop out of their sockets. Just take a look at his comments in that discussion. The hypocrisy of some of the people around here is astonishing, and the constant drama-seeking is exhausting. Talk of self congratulations [i]whilst[/I] self congratulating...
I've found the moderators receptive to advice and criticism. Criticisms like "there's a double standard" aren't going to be very effective as they aren't specific enough. I'm confident when someone points out specific instances that it will be taken to heart.
At the same time, consistency is overrated. When I don't sleep enough I'm irritable and curt. I might say things I don't mean or not in a way that's well thought out or well received. Everybody has off days so a bit of forbearance towards each other is in order too.
Yes, we're never going to be 100% consistent, but I hope we come across as fair to most posters here despite our faults.
Baden, you do come across as fair to most, if not all posters, despite your faults and that is what I try to return to you and my fellow forum members, despite all of my faults.
So today I arrived at the busstop and a plump woman was already waiting so I asked "When's it due?". She said: "I'm not fucking pregnant!" to which I said: "I meant the bus, you fat cunt."
So today I arrived at the bus stop and a plump woman was already waiting so I asked "When's the bus due, you fat cunt?". She said: "I'm fucking pregnant!".
So today I arrived at the hospital and gave birth to a fat cunt. I asked it, "Why is a raven like a writing desk?", and it opened its mouth wide and shrieked, "I'm a bus stop, not a fucking pregnant woman, you bitterly sarcastic owl!".
I was born with a personality. I was born fully grown, fully armed, and wearing a full suit of armour. But I wasn't born in the traditional way.
You seem more of a creepy lollypop lady with your freakish cat if ever I saw one. Not as creepy as @Benkei who preaches against double-standards while committing it himself.
You seem more of a creepy lollypop lady with your freakish cat if ever I saw one. Not as creepy as Benkei who preaches against double-standards while committing it himself.
Funny, I never raised the issue of double standards, merely get accused of it by you on what's becoming a regular basis. Whatever floats your boat I suppose.
Reply to TimeLine Agustino has convinced me that she should show some entrepreneurial spirit and provide for herself. Filthy scrounger. Why should I have to share my hard earned profits? They're mine. [I]All mine![/I]
My cat only eats those cat treats. The temptations. She has two kinds of other cat food bowls, but she doesn't eat them. Only treats. I mean, she seems to be a good weight and healthy, isn't croaking from what I can see.
As for me though I would say that it's a myth that women have to gain more than like twenty pounds while all pragos, and it's eating more, and not doing as much that makes them get fat, not being pragos, She would then respond that that is because I stopped taking her places. I then would back step, and be all like "why do you keep bringing that up? Everyone's always blaming others, but I would rather not get into who's become -- of now fault of their own -- slow and lame... a complaining turtle. The very last thing, anyone wants, on any adventure. Yeah, it's my fault but waddaya want from me,? I told you that you didn't look fat in that this morning, I'm not fucking Gandhi... you're still hotter babe".
I've actually been around for a while. I was a member at the old PF (mostly a lurker) and was fortunate enough to jump ship before it totally capsized. I took a long break from philosophy and politics to "study" the important subject of video games. Now that I'm done with that, I decided to see if you guys were still here arguing about the same old things. I'm not disappointed! :)
**Edit**
There are some people missing though. Robert Lockhart, the Austrian guy who always posted pictures of his cats, 180, PMB. What happened to them?
There are some people missing though. Robert Lockhart, the Austrian guy who always posted pictures of his cats, 180, PMB. What happened to them?
In consecutive order: was here not too long ago, don't know who you mean, joined but never comments, joined and hung around for a while but went off the radar a long time ago. I don't know why 180 Proof, Postmodern Beatnik, or Busycuttingcrap for that matter, don't participate like they used to. I guess people change and shit happens.
Reply to Sapientia You are sensitive Susan, admit it. Your whingey little rants each time you get into trouble is an example of your outbursts of emotion.
Reply to Sapientia Get your own personality, Susan. Anyway, I'm off to work after an early morning sesh at the gym to spend the day generally just being awesome while you cocoon yourself in your wings as you hang upsidedown clawed to the ceiling. Owl my ass.
Do owls hang upside down? Maybe if you're an owl, and but also batman-owl. Batowl
Don't use the c word and a bunch of times though. I remember one time I did on a date, and then I was like oh fuck, to myself, so I just apologized -- then she said something like "yeah, when I was growing up there were two words you never say so casually, "cunt", and "cocksucker". It could have been implying that a lot of the stuff gay guys do, straight women also do, so while you diatribe about how disgusting it is to consider sucking cock, or making fun of doing basically female sexual acts, well, don't expect many forthcoming.
You're right actually. I remember I said that in front of a woman once and felt bad about it and apologized. Although I wasn't on a date and it was about Boris Johnson so it may be forgivable.
That totally happened. I didn't mention at the time that I thought she might have attempted to gauge my reaction, cause she might of thought I was gay, but I was also dumb as shit back then. I'm finally ready to be infallible again though.
Timeline refuses your not-so-subtle invitation to a coffee date. At least that's what Hanover told me. (Actually he said "bhubbbbvvv..uhhhhh" but that's what he meant.)
ProbablyTrueNovember 16, 2017 at 21:15#1248430 likes
Yes, I think not mentioning that word is a good start. In Thailand, one of the rules is "Don't show up in shorts". One of my dates once told me she ran away when she saw another date show up wearing shorts. She asked me "Was that bad?"
Jekyll-and-Hyde Benkei. One minute he's preaching love and forgiveness, next he's hurling insult bombs at innocent civilians at bus stops.
Y'all should pity my daughter, I know I do whenever I'm Jekyll. Also I wouldn't dare saying that in real life because fat people can squash me like a bug.
Timeline refuses your not-so-subtle invitation to a coffee date. At least that's what Hanover told me. (Actually he said "bhubbbbvvv..uhhhhh" but that's what he meant.)
I can out-Hanover Hanover any day of the week. I don't just steal personalities, I outshadow the originals.
I don't know what that is about, but I think that it's more that women tend to be more sensitive to emotive expressions, and men to measurable ones. Calling someone an idiot, doesn't actually mean much measurably, but it tells you how they feel about them, at least in that moment.
Calling a dude impotent, ineffectual, a loser, incapable of, or bad at the things they do, then all kinds of butthurt ensues. Women though, are more like, "now, I think they're a great person, I really like them... but omg, the way she just leaves her shit all over the place, she just has no consideration for others. She doesn't clean, never cooks, eats my food, misses work all the time, and did you see the way she talks to him, you know who... I mean, great person and everything, but like bad at life."
Yes, one time someone at work told me I didn't do my job properly. Much anger ensued. (I can't remember if I did do my job properly or not. But as far as I was concerned that was irrelevent.)
Agustino has convinced me that she should show some entrepreneurial spirit and provide for herself. Filthy scrounger. Why should I have to share my hard earned profits? They're mine. All mine!
There are some people missing though. Robert Lockhart, the Austrian guy who always posted pictures of his cats, 180, PMB. What happened to them?
The Austrian guy with cats is my virtual older brother the Mayor of Simpleton. He was here a lot more in the inception of The Philosophy Forum, in fact he took a personal hit of being moved off the Contributor list at PF for contacting members and pointing them over here, before he was no longer allowed to access his Private Messages. Mayor had the instinct and insight to see that PF was sinking and began the evacuation process before abandoning the PF ship, saving as many folks as he could with the best of intentions.
That's my brother, he always takes the best of care with those he gives two hoots about. (L)
I wonder why left handers are so evil. Nature or nurture? It's hard to say. I mean, normally the left side is lazy, and incompetent, so what dark motives could spur it to dominance and proficiency?
I think that they're probably just brain-damaged, because they had bad parents. Thoughts?
Pretty popular guy that Hanover. Everyone is like drooling all over him. I must have missed his most recent brilliant insights. I know though, that everyone is just using him, as a tool, object, of little value in order to make me jealous.
The hottest place I've ever been is the inside of an oven. A witch put me there because I ate her candy house, or because I was a people pleaser. One of those. Damn, I'm done. Take the baton, Wos. Go weird and wonderful.
My strategy is to just like pose, exude, and have them try to impress me.
I wear big v-neck shirts that really show off the man-cleavage, and randomly pretend to be talking to several people that I obviously am not, in order to act disengaged as more and more of them vie for my attention.
Reply to Akanthinos A couple of things: you are super jelly and second, I've mind fucked her, you, and everyone here already, except for Baden, who I made love to vaginally. Don't you fucking judge!
It seems Hanover is the only person here who was fortunately born with a personality. The rest of you are a bunch of dipshits.
What sort of fine china should we register for? I was thinking two children, one our own, the other an adopted Swedish lesbian, but not the flannel sort, but the nice kind like I watch on my phone. For our first dance, I was thinking Pearl Jam's "Better Man." You must read the lyrics. It is so us. XOXOXO. The rest of the world can go to hell. We have us!
I retract my previous statement. You're all a bunch of dipshits, except Wosret. And I was going to dedicate 'Delilahs Delicious Desserts' to you, but no more!
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 17, 2017 at 02:08#1249410 likes
Reply to TimeLine I am currently land locked with no form of transpo as the guys went out tonight which is just as good as I am in full blown PMS, with it being day 12 of my Mother in law living on our ranch and I have ABSOLUTELY no chocolate let alone cupcakes like yours! How much to ship to Arizona? I have Hanover's credit card number when you are ready and make sure you include a huge fat tip for your troubles and the chocolate. O:)
I retract my previous statement. You're all a bunch of dipshits, except Wosret.
So typical. Withholding affection to gain attention, playing upon a man's natural fear of female rejection and a woman's natural fear of not being treasured by a male. The problem my silly fuckface is that the jealousy you evoke will only lead to hostility and not to affection.
What you need to do bitchwhore is simply be more secure in our love and stop playing these mindgames. I am too clever to respond to you just from seeing my name in one of your posts. You are nothing special, just another run of the mill person, whose legs I did not even notice through the cupcake covered glass table.
I shall now go and set fire to Wosret's house for no special reason. I am just fine, but need the flames from his most treasured belongings to warm my heart.
Thank God at least Hanover has a personality. Those words sustain me my Shit-tit.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Considering you have his CC details, fly first class down to Oz and we'll share a couple at my place. Sod the men. They're all gross.
So typical. Withholding affection to gain attention, playing upon a man's natural fear of female rejection and a woman's natural fear of not being treasured by a male. The problem my silly fuckface is that the jealousy you evoke will only lead to hostility and not to affection.
The echoes of my nervous laughter roam the earth like a travelling gypsy, but I see you are testing my tolerance, to leverage power over me as you try to assert your dominance through aggression and yet you fail to see that is impossible for I see straight through you as you see my legs through the cupcake container.
The question to ask yourself is how can you fear the rejection of a woman if she is not even aware of your affections? It is not that I want to be treasured, but your ambiguity will only lead to my hostility and not to my affection. And, O how much affection I have and none to give it to! To embrace your strong arm when the thrill of a horror movie is at its peak, texting one another late night jokes while lying in bed as we flirt and yearn for one another, my soft lips pecking your cheek when we meet and greet at the local cafe for brunch as one step closer to the goal of our union. O, the desolation!
I shall now go and set fire to Wosret's house for no special reason. I am just fine, but need the flames from his most treasured belongings to warm my heart.
The echoes of my nervous laughter roam the earth like a travelling gypsy, but I see you are testing my tolerance, to leverage power over me as you try to assert your dominance through aggression and yet you fail to see that is impossible for I see straight through you as you see my legs through the cupcake container.
The question to ask yourself is how can you fear the rejection of a woman if she is not even aware of your affections? It is not that I want to be treasured, but your ambiguity will only lead to my hostility and not to my affection. And, O how much affection I have and none to give it to! To embrace your strong arm when the thrill of a horror movie is at its peak, texting one another late night jokes while lying in bed as we flirt and yearn for one another, my soft lips pecking your cheek when we meet and greet at the local cafe for brunch as one step closer to the goal of our union. O, the desolation!
>:O >:O >:O LOOOOOOL - this is hilarious. Manipulation at its best :D
No, I never said that. Not all are, but some most definitely are, and that much should be as undeniable as saying that some men are physically violent.
How does that come into this? To compare our positions: you want a smaller state and are in favour of economic liberalism*, whereas I want a bigger state and am against economic liberalism.
So, to tie that in, presumably, my overlooking it ought to gain your approval, whereas, really, I ought to assert my authority and camp down on that kind of thing.
But this is social, not economic. And socially, our positions are almost reversed, with you as the conservative and me as the liberal.
*This is amusing, because you have this in common with neoliberalism, which you recently decried.
I will buy my ladies whatever they desire cuz I'm a pimp daddy, just ask Baden.
Such a sweetheart you are but when I went to book my first class ticket to TimeLine's place, your credit card was denied. Then they asked me why I would be wanting to purchase ANOTHER ticket to Australia since I had just purchased one last night. Any travel plans in your future you might want to tell us about?
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 17, 2017 at 13:46#1250260 likes
Any correlation we should be concerned about? As much as we joke, we do it because we love, so know that what you are going through is not lost on your group of friends here and as always, you can reach out to me in a Private Message as I am sure others as well.
Take care of yourself and remember we can be a rock in the sea of absurdity we call "life".
I shall now go and set fire to Wosret's house for no special reason. I am just fine, but need the flames from his most treasured belongings to warm my heart.
"What I want, Cloud, is to sail the darkness of the cosmos with this planet as my vessel, just as my mother did long ago. Then one day we'll find a new planet. And on its soil, we'll create a shining future." - Sephiroth.
You demon. No need to be hatin' though, it ain't a contest. It clearly isn't a contest.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 17, 2017 at 22:40#1251110 likes
Reply to Agustino You are very kind with your words, Thank you Agustino :)
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 17, 2017 at 22:42#1251120 likes
It always amazes me why people are so surprised when you treat them the way they have been treating you. :s
BuxtebuddhaNovember 17, 2017 at 22:48#1251140 likes
Such a sweetheart you are but when I went to book my first class ticket to TimeLine's place, your credit card was denied. Then they asked me why I would be wanting to purchase ANOTHER ticket to Australia since I had just purchased one last night. Any travel plans in your future you might want to tell us about?
Stalking, the final stage of a man's madness. So, there is a clear trend here. They fear rejection so play stupid games, games the girl has no clue about, thinks he's weird, then he jumps to passionate love, freaks the girl out, then gets maniacal and aggressive, freaks the girl out even more, then stalks her and freaks her out even more then the more, before he abandons her because it is just too hard, when all he needed to do at the beginning is say, "hey, would you like to go for a coffee?"
And, O how much affection I have and none to give it to! To embrace your strong arm when the thrill of a horror movie is at its peak, texting one another late night jokes while lying in bed as we flirt and yearn for one another, my soft lips pecking your cheek when we meet and greet at the local cafe for brunch as one step closer to the goal of our union. O, the desolation!
And I will break character for the moment and point out that Agu is quite wrong. This is not you being manipulative. It is an expression of an honest desire, of course not with me, but with whomever. You did not capture the heart of a yearning soul; you revealed it.
Back in character... My lass, whatever shall I do to earn a simple peck on the cheek and perhaps, if you would be so kind, something more?
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 18, 2017 at 11:42#1252340 likes
Stalking, the final stage of a man's madness. So, there is a clear trend here. They fear rejection so play stupid games, games the girl has no clue about, thinks he's weird, then he jumps to passionate love, freaks the girl out, then gets maniacal and aggressive, freaks the girl out even more, then stalks her and freaks her out even more then the more, before he abandons her because it is just too hard, when all he needed to do at the beginning is say, "hey, would you like to go for a coffee?"
And they think girls are emotional?
And they wonder why so many ladies are choosing to be Lesbians. 8-)
Has anyone noticed that accusations have become weaponized? There is no "innocent until proven guilty" offered.
For the record, I think that everyone wishes, and pretends to be better than they are, I think that even the greatest zen masters can lose track of authenticity under the right pressures. The Buddha wouldn't even enter the palace when he went back to visit his family. It's fantastic to resist corruptions, it's reckless and arrogant to place oneself willingly in known corrosive circumstances.
Lets not race for a moment, to the bottom or the top. Women have to be dangerous, otherwise they are not different than children or pets. It isn't like dudes are good, and girls evil. Dudes are more likely to just use violence. A dude that couldn't just use violence, needs to scheme, plan, team up and such. In a lecture course (it was awhile ago, I don't recall which), they said that Zeus was considered psychologically feminine in a lot of ways. Be was bi-sexual, but more importantly, he beat Kronos no with a direct one on one display of greater physical power, which is why all other attempts failed, but by teaming up, sharing the glory, scheming and planning.
I don't believe that women are like innately manipulative, nor that they are by any measure worse than men (not to mention that in Utena, it is the manipulative dudes that she beats in sword fights.), but they are generally smaller, slower and weaker. Not just generally... but unlike pyschological differences, which tend to run about 60/40ish, but only 10% of women can throw a rock farther than the average dude.
Funnily enough too, you hear that you get away with everything, and get everything handed to you if you're attractive, but I've read that with regards to crime and punishment, this is true with respect to every crime except for fraud, in which the uglier one is given the less harsh punishment. Presumably people think that if a hot person did it, they probably manipulated people with their hottness, which is bad, but if the less attractive implies the more cunning, and cunning is laudable.
I've noticed that the US is way more weaponized than any accusation I've heard. The Twilight Zone is a good show though, going through episodes watching at mo
I don't believe that women are like innately manipulative, nor that they are by any measure worse than men (not to mention that in Utena, it is the manipulative dudes that she beats in sword fights.), but they are generally smaller, slower and weaker. Not just generally... but unlike pyschological differences, which tend to run about 60/40ish, but only 10% of women can throw a rock farther than the average dude.
You do realise you are talking a whole heap of bullshit, right?
Men have no monopoly on game playing. I say this realizing it will confuse you because Monopoly is itself a game and that's a lot to keep straight.
They do, but the awkward thing is that men are playing games thinking women are playing along with them when no one is collecting $200 if they pass go. No one. *tragic music instrumental
That's quite a persuasive thing you said for me, and not a dismissive thing you said for you. That info comes from a TED talk, and seems to jive well with my experience. I'll try to find it.
Reply to Wosret Saying random bullshit that appears logical does not change the fact that it is random bullshit. So there is no law, no justice, just an institution based on appearances because some TED talk was given that said:
Funnily enough too, you hear that you get away with everything, and get everything handed to you if you're attractive, but I've read that with regards to crime and punishment, this is true with respect to every crime except for fraud, in which the uglier one is given the less harsh punishment. Presumably people think that if a hot person did it, they probably manipulated people with their hottness, which is bad, but if the less attractive implies the more cunning, and cunning is laudable.
Funnily enough in the Eastern European countries, there is actually a problem with sexism (very frequently women are treated solely as sexual objects) - but in Western Europe, there is the opposite problem - too much political correctness with regards to male/female differences to the point that you cannot even mention them because you're labelled a sexist. So it seems that there is a problem everywhere :s - we cannot achieve the right balance.
Here it is, and he actually says that the average dude can throw a ball further than 98% of women... so...
I don't care about the fact that men are biologically stronger then women, we all know that already, but It is the implication on psychological differences that apparently run 60/40 that is disturbing. To say men are better at philosophy or politics is unjustifiable and is no different to the days of profound racism that implied particular races as lacking the anatomy to be rendered equal with other races. Ok, so a man can throw a ball farther than a woman. AND? What's your point?
The point was that we have to use the tools available to us in order to succeed, protect ourselves, and conflict. This was what the Zeus example was meant to illustrate. It's not virtuous, it is stupid to attempt to use a strategy that will fail on its own merits, though perhaps succeed by serendipity.
Without full on repression, and resignation, emotions will find expression, even if they must incubate awhile.
Funnily enough in the Eastern European countries, there is actually a problem with sexism (very frequently women are treated solely as sexual objects)
For a start, I don't think that is funny. Secondly, this is much more of a terrible reality where sexual exploitation and trans-border trafficking of women is at epidemic proportions. But, the prevalence of such a tragic human disaster is irrelevant considering men can throw a ball father than a woman. Why? It is sexual exploitation, men who are sexually exploiting women and we are talking in the millions. How about we focus on that?
Does it feel inauthentic to be nice to people? It kind of does for me too, I actually prefer disagreeableness most of the time, though kindness doesn't always feel inauthentic either.
You'll need a good sized team to force me underground though.
I'd rather say complimentary than kind, I smile at everyone I see, and am generally positive and upbeat with people, but I don't conceal much, I'm just naturally a ray of sunshine is all.
AkanthinosNovember 18, 2017 at 19:24#1252970 likes
It is absolutely hilarious how society swings from one extreme to another, yes. I often find myself battling on the one hand with the real sexists among my countrymen, or with the PC crazed lunatics from outside.
But, the prevalence of such a tragic human disaster is irrelevant considering men can throw a ball father than a woman. Why
It's not irrelevant, I'm just pointing out that society can disintegrate in two different directions, and they are both evil. One has to strike a balance.
It is sexual exploitation, men who are sexually exploiting women and we are talking in the millions. How about we focus on that?
Sure, that is one of the problems we should focus on, though not the only one. We have to keep things in perspective, otherwise, we'll always solve one problem and create another 10.
And actually, about focus, it is you who is focusing and fussing about certain biological differences between men and women as if that was the end of the world. Not me.
I don't care about the fact that men are biologically stronger then women, we all know that already
No we don't - ask StreetlightX >:O
And actually, it is incorrect to state that men are biologically stronger than women without qualifying that statement, because in terms of resistance to disease, old age, etc. it seems that women are stronger. But see, the difference between me and someone like StreelightX is that I can say that nicely to you without saying you're an internalized sexist - other people, on the other hand, would think you're disgusting for saying something like that and would morally condemn you.
To say men are better at philosophy or politics is unjustifiable
I'm not sure Wosret said that, or whether that's true or not. But why is it a problem if there are psychological differences between men and women?
I think there certainly must be, just like there are biological differences between the races for that matter. Black athletes are known to be faster runners at the very top of their field, in comparison with whites or other races. Whites are known to have much higher skin cancer rates than all other races.
I often find myself battling on the one hand with the real sexists among my countrymen
Although having said that, there's usually very little to discuss with such people because they're not open to reconsidering their opinions, since their opinions are entrenched in the ways they live out in society.
For example, I took a cab driver a couple of weeks ago, and he asked me: "Do you know what the most difficult surgery is?" and I said no. So then he went on... "really? You don't? Do you want me to tell you?" and I was like "umm sure, why not?" and he said "The most difficult surgery, son, is to take the penis out of the woman's mind".
So there's lots of stuff like that in the whole ex-Soviet block, and it's incorporated in jokes and in the very ways people live and interact with each other. It's very difficult to see how it can be changed, because if you argue with these people, they think you're stuck up and they're just joking, so they don't change. And it's even built in the way women behave and live their lives so it's difficult from both sides, in the sense that many women expect men to behave that way.
But then it depends, because even here there's places and places, and people and people. I found that amongst some of the religious there are much fewer sexist behaviours of such a type, and more cooperative interactions amongst the sexes.
In the book bounce, it is argued that not blacks, but Kenyans are the top runners, and not just there either, more narrowly a high altitude region where they have a running culture.
You know, black people are the only racial demographic that don't believe that black people are generally more athletic than other races.
There is no real, "racial" genetics, as there is genetic flow, and there is interbreeding, and only groups where there is no such flow, and thus just degrees of relation more for every individual, than regions or groups themselves. Like, some humans aren't more closely related to chimps than others, I don't think. Even Neanderthals, there was flow into our species, so that having like between 1-4% dna from them, is different than the precise same amounts that we share with all common ancestors. As exactly how common of an ancestor differs among individuals, rather than the species as a whole.
That said, you know that men and women are technically closer genetic relations to chimps of the same sex, than members of their own species of the opposite sex. On account of the chromosome difference.
It is absolutely hilarious how society swings from one extreme to another, yes. I often find myself battling on the one hand with the real sexists among my countrymen, or with the PC crazed lunatics from outside.
Such trends are causally the product of a continuously changing society and particularly where there is a legacy of structural abuse, the reaction against the experience of such entrenched subjugation and any post-related extremities is understandable; the shift between two extremes until a norm is found takes time, it is a varying process depending on a number of social and cultural factors. Similar radical trajectories are found in other post- environments, i.e. the political domain in post-colonial Africa. I get what you are saying, but pulling your focus away from the genuine problem - the real problems against women - is a logical error and the sexists of your countrymen should be your only focus; there needn't be any guilt by association just because of those who react differently to their experience of this problem.
And actually, it is incorrect to state that men are biologically stronger than women without qualifying that statement, because in terms of resistance to disease, old age, etc. it seems that women are stronger. But see, the difference between me and someone like StreelightX is that I can say that nicely to you without saying you're an internalized sexist - other people, on the other hand, would think you're disgusting for saying something like that and would morally condemn you.
It is a biological fact that muscle mass in men differ to that in women, the latter requiring more fat in their body. I am not speaking of 'strong' in the evolutionary sense, I am talking just about physical strong - throwing a ball farther. That is all.
I think there certainly must be, just like there are biological differences between the races for that matter. Black athletes are known to be faster runners at the very top of their field, in comparison with whites or other races. Whites are known to have much higher skin cancer rates than all other races.
Although having said that, there's usually very little to discuss with such people because they're not open to reconsidering their opinions, since their opinions are entrenched in the ways they live out in society.
Sometimes, when people scream or speak over others, what they are actually trying to do is tell the other person 'listen to me' or 'I want to be heard' and this is precisely why you have those extreme PC cases as you mention as those women who protest topless with placards (as a reactive way to these deeply entrenched beliefs) is used to shock change, because any real change requires negotiation and time and sometimes the time for this is just too long that there is a fear that it will simply fizzle into oblivion. Non-violent resistance comes in many forms and depends on a number of factors; history of this subjugation, religion, culture, politics etc., but the intent is all the same and while I personally believe that change takes time and so would never behave in such a way, I still respect them nonetheless.
When I look at my society and see everyone doing the same thing and thinking the same way, I realised that those that dress themselves very differently and tell everyone to go fuck themselves are protesting and while they may be social outcasts, they are resisting the mob mentality, the mindless drones that follow the herd and so they should be praised. I may not be that way, but I will still respect them nonetheless.
For example, I took a cab driver a couple of weeks ago, and he asked me: "Do you know what the most difficult surgery is?" and I said no. So then he went on... "really? You don't? Do you want me to tell you?" and I was like "umm sure, why not?" and he said "The most difficult surgery, son, is to take the penis out of the woman's mind".
This is projection. He is shifting his thoughts and blaming the woman for having the problem he has.
And it's even built in the way women behave and live their lives so it's difficult from both sides, in the sense that many women expect men to behave that way.
Most people would resist this statement, but you are absolutely right and there a many women who are unconsciously protecting themselves by submitting and behaving in ways that will ensure their safety because subjugation is a form of psychological violence. They are reared from an early age to believe that they are worth nothing more than their appearances and if their environment or culture all believe in the same value, then it must be true.
I get what you are saying, but pulling your focus away from the genuine problem - the real problems against women - is a logical error and the sexists of your countrymen should be your only focus; there needn't be any guilt by association just because of those who react differently to their experience of this problem.
No, you are obsessed that only sexism directed against women is a genuine problem, probably because you're trying to get to the very best structure of society for yourself, without regard for anything else. This kind of blind focus leads to further systematic oppression and problems, including political correctness. In my blunt opinion, you are just driven by deep-seated fear.
You're just now trying to subjugate my powers to fulfil your single-minded mission by insinuating that I am not focusing single-mindedly on this problem and therefore I am morally failing. Nope. That is one of society's problems which must be considered along with all the others.
Sometimes, when people scream or speak over others, what they are actually trying to do is tell the other person 'listen to me' or 'I want to be heard' and this is precisely why you have those extreme PC cases as you mention as those women who protest topless with placards (as a reactive way to these deeply entrenched beliefs) is used to shock change, because any real change requires negotiation and time and sometimes the time for this is just too long that there is a fear that it will simply fizzle into oblivion. Non-violent resistance comes in many forms and depends on a number of factors; history of this subjugation, religion, culture, politics etc., but the intent is all the same and while I personally believe that change takes time and so would never behave in such a way, I still respect them nonetheless.
This is just postmodernist pseudo BS. Just because they want to be heard and listened to isn't a license to resort to the most degrading means possible. That's no more retarded than the US invading Iraq because they "may" have weapons of mass destruction and thus if they don't do it, then it may be too late. That's a very stupid way to go about things. Acting in the wrong direction, whether that direction is right or left, can be equally wrong. As such, their oppression does not justify such behaviour.
This is projection. He is shifting his thoughts and blaming the woman for having the problem he has.
No, it's not necessarily projection, it's just sexist and degrading to women because not all women are like that. Not all women are nymphomaniacs, just like not all men are obsessed with sex.
but you are absolutely right and there a many women who are unconsciously protecting themselves by submitting and behaving in ways that will ensure their safety because subjugation is a form of psychological violence.
No, they're not just defending themselves, they are asserting themselves within a social structure by behaving in this way. Behaving that way gives them a certain degree of power over others, so they're by no means as innocent as you would want to portray them.
You keep portraying things in black and white, which makes it difficult to discuss this scientifically.
They are reared from an early age to believe that they are worth nothing more than their appearances and if their environment or culture all believe in the same value, then it must be true.
Yes and no - I wouldn't say that belief is as prevalent as you seem to suggest. But it does happen. Also what people are worth, and what they get their enjoyment from can vary. Around here many women get their enjoyment from consumerism quite frankly, and if a guy doesn't buy the girl he likes what she wants, that's more than sufficient reason for her to breakup with him. Men are more powerful physically here, and in the most backwards places they can somewhat control women through force, but in the cities and more developed places it is often women, who are more adept at the social game, who control men.
Either way, relationships are most often not peaceful (not in terms of physical violence now, but just conflict), so let's leave it at that. And that comes from the attitudes of BOTH men and women.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 18, 2017 at 23:08#1253660 likes
When I look at my society and see everyone doing the same thing and thinking the same way, I realised that those that dress themselves very differently and tell everyone to go fuck themselves are protesting and while they may be social outcasts, they are resisting the mob mentality, the mindless drones that follow the herd and so they should be praised. I may not be that way, but I will still respect them nonetheless.
You're no more special than anyone else, don't kid yourself.
AkanthinosNovember 18, 2017 at 23:14#1253740 likes
Heard less than an hour ago at work :
P1 There is life on Earth.
P2 Earth is made of dirt (works better in French, where it's literally Earth is made of earth)
P3 Some other planets must also be made of dirt.
C : Therefore, there must be life on other planets.
This was delivered with the utmost seriousness of a graying academic.
Race is a social construct; the naive concept of select genetic markers evolved through shared biological, ethnic and cultural identities. There are no distinctions except for what we have created.
AkanthinosNovember 19, 2017 at 00:03#1254390 likes
No, you are obsessed that only sexism directed against women is a genuine problem, probably because you're trying to get to the very best structure of society for yourself, without regard for anything else. This kind of blind focus leads to further systematic oppression and problems, including political correctness. In my blunt opinion, you are just driven by deep-seated fear.
What a stupid response. No, i'm not, that is just a pathetic exposure of the person that you really are. It is like me saying that you are obsessed with sexism because you refuse to have sex with women.
You're just now trying to subjugate my powers to fulfil your single-minded mission by insinuating that I am not focusing single-mindedly on this problem and therefore I am morally failing. Nope. That is one of society's problems which must be considered along with all the others.
No, they're not just defending themselves, they are asserting themselves within a social structure by behaving in this way. Behaving that way gives them a certain degree of power over others, so they're by no means as innocent as you would want to portray them.
Behaving in WHAT way? You are generalising women into this BS category and then saying "I want to discuss things scientifically".
Just because they want to be heard and listened to isn't a license to resort to the most degrading means possible.
According to who? They have EVERY right to protest however they want, even if it means being topless, because that is how they choose to express their frustrations and you have no right to accord civility in the way they address sexism. And then you say:
But it isn't. There is a socially constructed concept of race in addition to a biological one, both of which are rather loose in meaning and thus often unhelpful I would agree, but to say that there is no biological concept of race is simply false. Morphological features vary among human beings, and morphological features have a basis in biology. People don't create them, they are born with them. Do they matter much? Not really, which is why racism, in the sense of treating certain people differently on the basis of their phenotypical features is wrong, irrational, and unscientific.
But it isn't. There is a socially constructed concept of race in addition to a biological one, both of which are rather loose in meaning and thus often unhelpful I would agree, but to say that there is no biological concept of race is simply false. Morphological features vary among human beings, and morphological features have a basis in biology. People don't create them, they are born with them. Do they matter much? Not really, which is why racism, in the sense of treating certain people differently on the basis of their phenotypical features is wrong, irrational, and unscientific.
The inherent biological markers based on ancestry is caused by the environment in which our ancestors lived. Our skin or hair colour does not belong to a particular "race" as all people with blonde hair do not have the same genetics but rather their DNA is based on the environment in which their ancestors lived. "Race" is socially constructed, a way to categorise humans but the only real difference is environmental and it has no effect on anything other than enabling features to adapt to the environment over time.
The idea of "race" is to classify humans into different hierarchical categories that only formulate distinctions to contrast false notions of beauty and intelligence (or superiority) that is actually non-existent. Any genetically homogeneous population is socially constructed; we are all one and the same.
Our skin or hair colour does not belong to a particular "race" as all people with blonde hair do not have the same genetics but rather their DNA is based on the environment in which their ancestors lived.
You seem confused. We're not talking about different species. There is only one species called Homo sapiens.
The idea of "race" is to classify humans into different hierarchical categories that only formulate distinctions to contrast false notions of beauty and intelligence (or superiority) that is actually non-existent.
Well, that's an older view long since repudiated by science. It doesn't exhaust the definition of the word.
Well, that's an older view long since repudiated by science. It doesn't exhaust the definition of the word.
Race as a category is useful for selection and breeding.
As those concepts are not applied to human reproduction (unless you are gross), there are no reason to distinguish between different human races.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 19, 2017 at 01:58#1255050 likes
Guys, my Roman beak of a nose was socially constructed by middle aged, patriarchal white collared white men from New Jersey. It's terrible. I'm gonna need a redo, ASAP.
Reply to Buxtebuddha You seem to follow either Agu or Thorongil before responding with some terse response. My dog follows too. Do you want their approval or something, or are you just incapable of thinking for yourself?
There is. Certain races are statistically more prone to certain diseases than others, for example.
Race is then a heuristic concept ; it is because it is useful to refer to genetic predisposition that we refer to race. Better would be to simply denote the time and space which defines a higher probability of encountering the affected individuals.
Certain races are statistically more prone to certain diseases than others, for example.
Have you no comprehension of what environmental factors actually mean? Or are you just trying to fly in the face of evolutionary theory because it stands against your belief-structure?
BuxtebuddhaNovember 19, 2017 at 02:13#1255190 likes
You seem to follow either Agu or Thorongil before responding with some terse response. My dog follows too. Do you want their approval or something, or are you just incapable of thinking for yourself?
Not much point arguing with someone like you. I learned that months ago! It's still amusing to read your posts, though.
So, a few scientists don't like the word "race" and want to replace it with "ancestry" or "population." I really don't care. That's just rearranging the deck chairs. If the "white race" becomes the "white population," the same underlying concept appears to remain the same, i.e. that a certain segment of people from Europe share similar skin pigmentation, among other traits, which are not "socially constructed."
Have you no comprehension of what environmental factors actually mean? Or are you just trying to fly in the face of evolutionary theory because it stands against your belief-structure?
So, a few scientists don't like the word "race" and want to replace it with "ancestry" or "population." I really don't care. That's just rearranging the deck chairs. If the "white race" becomes the "white population," the same underlying concept appears to remains the same, i.e. that a certain segment of people from Europe share similar skin pigmentation, among other traits, which are not "socially constructed."
No, the problem is the social construct, the idea that "white" means something when it is solely environmental factors where DNA has adapted to the physical conditions of our environment as part of our survival. The socially constructed concept would give meaning to something like a 'white population' or a "race" and by extension purity or beauty or superiority based on physical factors because that is how we contrast ourselves from others. The scientific fact is that though we may share physical traits, there is no homogeneity in the genetics of those that appear the same and thus no scientific merit behind the concept of categorising people who look the same into the same category.
P1 There is life on Earth.
P2 Earth is made of dirt (works better in French, where it's literally Earth is made of earth)
P3 Some other planets must also be made of dirt.
C : Therefore, there must be life on other planets.
This was delivered with the utmost seriousness of a graying academic.
Dirt is dirty. To be dirty is to be concerned with sex in a lewd or obscene way. Therefore, all planets made of dirt must be Hanover.
the problem is the social construct, the idea that "white" means something when it is solely environmental factors where DNA has adapted to the physical conditions of our environment as part of our survival.
What you've just described is not a social construct but biological reality.
The socially constructed concept would give meaning to something like a 'white population' or a "race" and by extension purity or beauty or superiority based on physical factors because that is how we contrast ourselves from others.
This is the socially constructed notion of race, yes.
Take a look at the syntax of your first sentence I quoted, as I think you've already ceded my point and are simply confusing yourself. In that sentence, the "idea" (what I termed the biological reality) has to refer to "the social construct" for it to make any grammatical sense, but I suspect you were actually trying to contrast the two.
Take a look at the syntax of your first sentence I quoted, as I think you've already ceded my point and are simply confusing yourself. In that sentence, the "idea" (what I termed the biological reality) has to refer to "the social construct" for it to make any grammatical sense, but I suspect you were actually trying to contrast the two.
What?
AkanthinosNovember 19, 2017 at 03:02#1255370 likes
If the "white race" becomes the "white population," the same underlying concept appears to remain the same, i.e. that a certain segment of people from Europe share similar skin pigmentation, among other traits, which are not "socially constructed."
That you think "white" corresponds to a race, any more than "European", shows exactly why race should no longer be used as a concept.
To be usable, the concept of race would necessitate that we reduce what we normally accept as a race back to the categories accepted during the dark ages. Not "Caucasian", but Britons, Saxons and Franks. But then again, you'll quickly hit the wall that those categories were predicated on multiple values and that, for example, Britons were a lot more about who spoke Briton then about who had only Britons in their lineage.
And I don't care if the term is no longer used, as I already mentioned above. I'm talking about a certain concept of race that does have a biological basis.
This is ridiculous. Race, because this concept is a fuzzy amalgamation of different traits, is simply not a useful term in modern biology. If it is no longer being used, it is because it does not correspond very well to a biological reality.
AkanthinosNovember 19, 2017 at 03:21#1255430 likes
Yes, but when you say that dirt is dirty, I have no way of knowing if you refer to the concept "dirt" or the individual "dirt". Frege was clearly not very dirty.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 19, 2017 at 03:33#1255440 likes
Race, because this concept is a fuzzy amalgamation of different traits, is simply not a useful term in modern biology. If it is no longer being used, it is because it does not correspond very well to a biological reality.
If it is not being used? You don't even know?
AkanthinosNovember 19, 2017 at 03:39#1255460 likes
Reply to Akanthinos I grow impatient with this conversation, so I'll say this only once: if by race one means a social construct, then it's a mere tautology to say that race has no biological basis. If by race one means a way of classifying people according to phenotype, such as skin color, then it clearly does have a biological basis. I have always ever been talking about the latter concept of race and would appreciate it if my interlocutors would cease equivocating.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 19, 2017 at 03:46#1255480 likes
Reply to Akanthinos Reads like a weasely way out of providing evidence that the vast majority of study in biology rejects every notion of race. A hypothetical may be positive, but that doesn't make it true.
AkanthinosNovember 19, 2017 at 03:51#1255490 likes
... if by race one means a social construct, then it's a mere tautology to say that race has no biological basis. If by race one means a way of classifying people according to phenotype, as skin color, then it clearly does have a biological basis.
Indeed, the ambiguity of the term "race" is clearly confusing you and you seem caught in the historical use of the term based on phenotypic classification that was also coupled with models of desirable/undesirable features between these said "races" (i.e that skulls of Jews are smaller) hence the concept of superiority, beauty etc. While you may consider the use of other terms like "population" merely rearranging the same concept, the latter identifies solely the scientific and removes the embedded ideological notions that have become entrenched socially for centuries.
You are also failing to acknowledge that while there may be particular groups that share similar phenotypes, they do not share the same genetic structure and thus there is no common gene or cluster of genes within one phenotypic group.
So, I am white with freckles and someone else might be white with freckles, but genetically that has absolutely no relevance to any racial identification and would be an invalid designation that I belong under a particular genetic category. That is so simple and so logical that I am concerned why you are having trouble getting that.
AkanthinosNovember 19, 2017 at 05:34#1255620 likes
This is the use I'm refering to:" If membership criteria are now to be watered down, because it is considered politically important, it is difficult to imagine how the public "
-https://www.linguee.fr/francais-anglais/traduction/si+c%27est+le+cas,+c%27est+parce+que.html
5th case exemple.
It's an accepted form of making a positive statement. It does not state an hypothetical. And no, it doesn't prove the fact, because statements don't prove themselves in natural language, that's fucking philo 101.
What a stupid response. No, i'm not, that is just a pathetic exposure of the person that you really are. It is like me saying that you are obsessed with sexism because you refuse to have sex with women.
Woah, woah, woah mommy, I have been exposed :’( - time now to pretend I don't know what's happening and accuse the other of projection. Whatever negative thing is said about me is ALWAYS a projection - only when I say negative things (which is most of my messages), then it never is a projection :D :D :D :D :D
Behaving in WHAT way? You are generalising women into this BS category and then saying "I want to discuss things scientifically".
In the way you were describing in your quote. And no, I'm not generalising when I talk about a particular group of women in a particular geographic region.
According to who? They have EVERY right to protest however they want, even if it means being topless, because that is how they choose to express their frustrations and you have no right to accord civility in the way they address sexism.
No, this is a misunderstanding. They have no such right, nor will I ever respect and recognise this so-called right to destroy cultural values and public decency because of their selfishness and lack of self-control. If anything, such behaviour should be punished according to the law, until they learn to protest in a decent way as civilised human beings. If you cannot behave in a civilised manner, I don't see why others ought to behave in a civilised manner to you.
Unfortunately, feminism has degraded from the left, which was a very necessary movement, to the right image, which is totally unnecessary and is part of the dissolution of Western culture that we're noticing today. A dissolution that Russia and other global political actors are interested to spread in order to throw Western nations in civil war and internal strife.
AkanthinosNovember 19, 2017 at 10:18#1255910 likes
Morphological features vary among human beings, and morphological features have a basis in biology.
I think the claim is that the morphological variations in humans are not extreme enough to warrant an additional taxonomic rank (below that of sub-species), which is what a biological race would be.
They have no such right, nor will I ever respect and recognise this so-called right to destroy cultural values and public decency because of their selfishness and lack of self-control.
It's not because of selfishness or lack of self-control. It's a protest to address injustice.
And sometimes the cultural values are wrong, and need to be "destroyed". That's how progress is made. We don't live in Victorian England anymore.
It's not because of selfishness or lack of self-control. It's a protest to address injustice.
Yes, one can protest to address injustice in just and unjust ways. If you protest in unjust ways, which multiply the harm and negative effects done to society, then you are selfish and lack self-control.
I think the claim is that the morphological variations in humans are not extreme enough to warrant an additional taxonomic rank (below that of sub-species), which is what a biological race would be.
Exactly. And on top of that, the markers that we used to identify "race" in humans do not have in any way the same level of consistency that we find in the races of other species. Because "race" is inherently tied to the idea of breeding, and we don't apply a strict as rules for human mating as we do with breedings.
Being topless is indecent because only savages go around naked? That seems like a non sequitur.
No, it's just the truth. You lack a sense for public decency and morality, so you cannot see it. It seems you don't even understand what decency is.
AkanthinosNovember 19, 2017 at 10:41#1256180 likes
I'll also have you know that it is legal for women to walk around in public topless in Ontario.
Literally the only good thing about that shitty Province.
And whatever bad can be (correctly) said about Ontarians, they aren't savages. More like the most boring hicks ever.
You lack a sense for public decency and morality, so you cannot see it. It seems you don't even understand what decency is.
I don't lack a sense for public decency and morality. I just disagree with your claims about what counts as decent and moral.
But, of course, that's always going to be the case given that your moral values stem from believing that a book written 2,000 years ago are the words of a god.
I don't lack a sense for public decency and morality. I just disagree with your claims about what counts as decent and moral.
But, of course, that's always going to be the case given that your moral values stem from believing that a book written 2,000 years ago are the words of a god.
Reply to Michael You know, that's why the West will disappear, because people like you lack culture-consciousness. The Muslims, for example, have culture consciousness. They protect and defend their culture. On the other hand, the West is divided by people like you, so we're perpetually stuck in internal conflict and disagreement because our common values have been eroded and they keep being eroded.
You don't see many Christians protesting against this dissolution of values in the West, we accept all kinds of bullshit, which tear our communities apart. That's why we're on the brink of collapse because we permit this.
Destroying the values that bind people together is the single most damaging thing that can be done to a group.
Practically what defines the West is its progressiveness and diversity in terms of values. That's exceptional and on the whole a good thing. So, the type of reactionary rigidity you espouse is actually antithetical to what we stand for as a cultural mix and presenting yourself as a defender of our common values isn't credible.
Practically what defines the West is its progressiveness and diversity in terms of values. That's exceptional and on the whole a good thing. So, the type of reactionary rigidity you espouse is actually antithetical to what we stand for as a cultural mix and presenting yourself as a defender of our common values isn't credible.
No, what defines the West is adherence to Christian values, which include tolerance and diversity, within certain boundaries. So by all means your enshrining of tolerance above everything else isn't Western, at least not historically so.
They do, but the awkward thing is that men are playing games thinking women are playing along with them when no one is collecting $200 if they pass go. No one. *tragic music instrumental
But for the fact that men and women navigate this awkward maze every day and form meaningful relationships keep the situation from being tragic.
What you mean to say is that you personally are challenged in the relationship arena despite your successes in most other areas, and you find that frustrating. And so you resort to seeking direction from me, which is the most reasonable approach.
But for the fact that men and women navigate this awkward maze every day and form meaningful relationships keep the situation from being tragic.
So, causally, this is the root of my problems. I am too selective. I assumed that you were meant to first get to know a person in order to understand the games that they play since the intent behind those games are entirely sexual, which requires permission that I am clearly not ready to give to someone who I am not friends with. It is not that I am averse to the games and I know how to play them very well in as much as I am capable of being romantic, but given the fact that such game-playing insults my intelligence as I know what they are trying to say and I don't want them to say it because I don't know them, is actually leading to this tragedy. Great. It is my fault that I am profoundly attracted to men who have an honest confidence and friendliness and don't resort to pithy behavioural displays with a woman they do not even know.
The game playing, sir, comes afterwards, it is a choice.
No, this is a misunderstanding. They have no such right, nor will I ever respect and recognise this so-called right to destroy cultural values and public decency because of their selfishness and lack of self-control. If anything, such behaviour should be punished according to the law, until they learn to protest in a decent way as civilised human beings. If you cannot behave in a civilised manner, I don't see why others ought to behave in a civilised manner to you.
You see, from your previous conversations on here particularly with streetlightX, you found a way to adapt and pretend that you were in support of women' rights, but you are not, and you were only using that as a strategy that you adopted following these conversations so that you can manoeuvre your way around any potential antagonism to your opinion, your real opinion, which is that you are actually against feminism.
I am going to say this one more time and see if it can penetrate that thick and dense layer of ego to reach reason, but who are you to enforce cultural values to anyone?
BuxtebuddhaNovember 19, 2017 at 20:02#1256820 likes
I am going to say this one more time and see if it can penetrate that thick and dense layer of ego to reach reason, but who are you to enforce cultural values to anyone?
You see, from your previous conversations on here particularly with streetlightX, you found a way to adapt and pretend that you were in support of women' rights, but you are not, and you were only using that as a strategy that you adopted following these conversations so that you can manoeuvre your way around any potential antagonism to your opinion, your real opinion, which is that you are actually against feminism.
>:O >:O >:O - and supposing you were right, if I manoeuvre my way around any potential antagonism, what do I achieve? :s Clearly such a stratagem should have a great and worthy goal, otherwise why bother?
AkanthinosNovember 19, 2017 at 21:49#1257210 likes
Reply to Agustino All this is time you could spend on writing your book, Agu.
Worry less about lady's perky parts
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 19, 2017 at 23:04#1257460 likes
My introverted Indian asked me if he can study abroad because the University he attends has them. I said I know they have a Campus in Japan but now is not really the right time to go to Japan. He said he wasn't thinking Japan but rather New Zealand. I was surprised they had a work study there and am still not convinced but I went along with his idea. So I said honey studying abroad is AWSOME and New Zealand are some of the nicest people you will ever meet. I said there is only one problem with you doing your work study in New Zealand and he said what's that? The people I have known that have traveled to NZ for any length of time have never come back. He responded with a "Yeah and?"
:-O :-O :-O :-O :-O :-O :-O :-O :-O
Then he tells me that America is the most racist country in the world. Okay remember he is 18 but I get his point. He is considering this seriously as an 18 yr old can. He is checking to see if his skill set is desired in NZ and I have a feeling it is but what am I supposed to do?
I feel doubly sorry for Native Americans. Reason being is that they are very gentle spirits and kind and warm and giving, which makes them prone to being exploited by less than honorable spirits.
He is right about America being a land full of racism, and he is probably the best person to speak about it in general, due to the history of Native Americans.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 19, 2017 at 23:27#1257570 likes
I feel doubly sorry for Native Americans. Reason being is that they are very gentle spirits and kind and warm and giving, which makes them prone to being exploited by less than honorable spirits.
He is right about America being a land full of racism, and he is probably the best person to speak about it in general, due to the history of Native Americans.
You are so sweet Posty McPostface and very understanding of those who are shunned by racism and it is prevalent here in the USA for sure. I just want you to know that I call my boys my "Indians" just because a decade ago I did not want to disclose too much about their ages or gender but they are Italian/Bohemian/Hungarian/Lithuanian and a bit of Norwegian. They are the privileged Caucasians of the Millennial Generation and are handing themselves with grace and dignity.
@Agustino Do not repost edited or deleted posts. The point of posters having the ability to edit or delete their posts is obvious + mods may do it for a reason. You don't get to bypass that.
AkanthinosNovember 19, 2017 at 23:54#1257640 likes
I feel doubly sorry for Native Americans. Reason being is that they are very gentle spirits and kind and warm and giving, which makes them prone to being exploited by less than honorable spirits.
Caricaturing natives doesn't really help them.
I mean, I get that you mean truly well.
Uhh, alright. Can't complain about anything apart from still being unsure about going back to college. There's still that lingering doubt hanging around about whether I should go back or do nothing. Doing nothing doesn't really sound fun, and there's only so much I can ask from my mom.
I think I might go back to my old college (UCSC) for Spring 2018, and pursue a degree in the only thing that I can stand doing, and do a lot, in my free time, meaning philosophy. I'm not a math guy and all; but, staying on disability and not being able to keep more than 2k in my bank account kinda leaves me with few options than to go back to college and finish a degree or stay there as long as possible while on disability.
I'm not angry with myself; but, this is what I get for not wanting to do anything in life. Everything seems ready, all I need is to get the skittish wheels on the road.
No, what defines the West is adherence to Christian values
Enlightenment values, the foundation of what we know as the West today, are as much anti-Christian as Christian, which is why we thankfully have the separation of Church and State, something that theocratic cultures, the cultural uniformity of which you seem to so admire, never got around to. And you can add the emphasis on reason as opposed to tradition, and on scientific progress, to that - gifts we managed to give ourselves in the face of often massive resistance from the Christian hierarchy. So, what's left of your "Christian values"? Exactly what values are you referring to that are both uniquely Western and uniquely Christian that you think we adhere to so much that they "define us"?
Do not repost edited or deleted posts. The point of posters having the ability to edit or delete their posts is obvious + mods may do it for a reason. You don't get to bypass that.
Okay, I obviously didn't know as that's not part of the guidelines. And while it's obvious not to post something deleted by moderators, it's not so obvious not to post something edited out after it was ALREADY posted by a member. People should have a certain degree of self-control before they post, it is, after all, an online medium, and records of what they post remain.
Is it alright to mention them then, without posting them? I'm asking with regards to the future. I mean, I remember clearly when some people mentioned some of my deleted posts and there was no problem with that.
And you can add the emphasis on reason as opposed to tradition, and on scientific progress
Yeah, which is why science and reason was started by the priests. Christianity is one of the first religions to identify both Scripture and reason as valid ways of knowing.
So, what's left of your "Christian values"? Exactly what values are you referring to that are both uniquely Western and uniquely Christian that you think we adhere to so much that they "define us"?
Don't quote deleted stuff. You're smart enough to know why. And I don't exactly know what you mean by "mentioning" them or what you're referring to regarding your own posts.
Reason vs tradition (I said "opposed to" deliberately) not "reason" as part of tradition. When those two came into conflict the church fought tooth and nail against reason. Do I really need to go into examples?
And I don't exactly know what you mean by "mentioning" them
So and so said that so and so. That's paraphrasing what they said, not quoting them exactly. Although it again depends. If someone posted their letter to their grandmother by accident on here, it would be dishonorable at least to bring it up. But if someone posts an insult?
There were times when people brought up some of my posts (not word for word, but they menitoned them) that had been deleted by the mods back then, and there seemed to be no problem with that.
I'm surprised, putting it mildly, that anyone would make such an obviously false claim on, of all places, a philosophy forum.
Then who was responsible for scientific progress after Christianity was already dominant as a worldview in the West? It was largely the religious community.
When those two came into conflict the church fought tooth and nail against reason. Do I really need to go into examples?
That's a lie. For example, Galileo fought against reason, and the Church fought for reason. It was the former who insisted that a new instrument he had invented himself could see the motions of the planets more accurately than otherwise, and it was him who insisted that the sun really is at the center, based on those measurements, and not merely a hypothesis.
And this is admitted even by hardcore atheists like Paul Feyerabend.
People should have a certain degree of self-control before they post, it is, after all, an online medium, and records of what they post remain.
A degree of self-control pretty is difficult with you, but I guess I should have remembered that you were unfortunately born without a personality. My bad.
Nevertheless! Now you appear to be ranting about Christianity when the topic was about why you think feminists must not behave like "savages" and your answer to who are you to enforce cultural values to anyone was:
The next thing you know it will be about the evils of legalising gay marriage because it is just so un-Christian. What cave do you live in, by the way?
Then who was responsible for scientific progress after Christianity was already dominant as a worldview in the West? It was largely the religious community.
Your statement was obviously false. Priests did not "start" reason and science. And you know that presumably, so it's a very odd claim. As for who was most responsible for scientific progress, the answer is scientists.
Just name of few of these uniquely Christian / Western values. They define us according to you, so what's the difficulty?
Can you answer the question? Apart from one vague reference to "tolerance and diversity within certain limits" (values more easily claimed by secularism anyway) you haven't mentioned any. Go ahead.
So and so said that so and so. That's paraphrasing what they said, not quoting them exactly. Although it again depends. If someone posted their letter to their grandmother by accident on here, it would be dishonorable at least to bring it up. But if someone posts an insult?
If someone posts an insult and then deletes it then I would consider that a retraction and forget about it. It depends on context but definitely do not quote deleted posts.
For example, Galileo fought against reason, and the Church fought for reason
They were both employing reason. But it's as I was saying: The church employed their version of reason to protect tradition. When reason contradicted tradition, they fought against it. Or are you really trying to argue that the church was sanguine about its traditions being dismantled in the name of scientific progress? If so, you are missing something fundamental in the nature of religious institutions. It's called "self preservation". Scientific knowledge is naturally mutable and disruptive, and so progressive, hence the term scientific progress. Religious knowledge and the institutions in which that knowledge are inhered tend towards stasis and conservatism. The fact that priests tended to be educated and literate for reasons to do with their social role and that therefore they were in a position to contribute to scientific progress does not negate the fundamental oppositions between the two spheres that have played themselves out continually over the past couple of millennia.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 20, 2017 at 11:09#1258350 likes
1996 Millennial - 21 yrs old today What generation Am I if I was born in 1996?
Other names for this group are the Millennials, the Internet Generation, and the abbreviated Gen Y or Gen Yers.
1999 Millennial - 18 yrs old today What generation Am I if I was born in 1999? Millennials (also known as the Millennial Generation or Generation Y) are the demographic cohort following Generation X. There are no precise dates when the generation starts and ends; most researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to the early 2000s.
Maybe Gen X, Gen Y or logically following Gen Z
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 20, 2017 at 11:26#1258390 likes
1996 Millennial - 21 yrs old today What generation Am I if I was born in 1996?
Other names for this group are the Millennials, the Internet Generation, and the abbreviated Gen Y or Gen Yers.
1999 Millennial - 18 yrs old today What generation Am I if I was born in 1999?
Millennials (also known as the Millennial Generation or Generation Y) are the demographic cohort following Generation X. There are no precise dates when the generation starts and ends; most researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to the early 2000s.
Maybe Gen X, Gen Y or logically following Gen Z
Hmmm...
Generation Z is the demographic cohort after the Millennials. Currently, there are many competing names used in connection with them in the media. There are no precise dates for when this cohort starts or ends, but demographers and researchers typically use the mid-1990s to mid-2000s as starting birth years. However, there is little consensus regarding ending birth years.
They are more accurately Gen Z, however most go by millenials today. Millenials include people born in the 1980s too.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 20, 2017 at 11:49#1258480 likes
@Agustino
We could call them youngsters or whipper snappers.
Nevertheless! Now you appear to be ranting about Christianity when the topic was about why you think feminists must not behave like "savages" and your answer to who are you to enforce cultural values to anyone was:
Oh yeah, I'm talking 'bout Christianity cause that's what other people were talking about, you know, the world doesn't revolve around TimeLine and her concerns only, sorry to tell you. I know you want the whole world, including all men, to be thinking of you, but unfortunately, that's not how things work.
As for who was most responsible for scientific progress, the answer is scientists.
And who were the scientists? You know Newton for example was a very religious man, as were MOST of the important scientists through history. Today most professional scientists lean towards atheism, that's true, but this wasn't the case historically. In fact, they saw their scientific work as devotion to God.
No, I obviously think the question doesn't merit too many words. Literarily everything good of modernity was taken from Christianity. The equality of all before God, separation of church and state, the relevance and importance of knowledge and learning, a GLOBAL society (many fail to realise that the Revelation is the first time when religion wasn't constrained to one people's but became a global phenomenon, meant for the whole world - global brotherhood between all men regardless of color, race, intelligence, etc.), non-violent resolution of conflicts, etc.
Almost everyone was religious at that time. That doesn't credit religion for their accomplishments (genetic fallacy).
:-} - no, I wasn't speaking about just vocally giving lip service to religion, I was saying that they were authentically religious and devoted to religion.
And I'm saying that even if they were authentically religious (as if you could know that for sure) that crediting religion for their scientific accomplishments is an example of the genetic fallacy.
I think I've met someone I like. His name is Agustino, although he prefers to go by the ironic moniker, "The Great Agu".
He's adorable, but hopelessly mistaken about almost everything. Opposites attract, as they say. I think that there's a spark between us. He laughs at my jokes, and has a devilish side to him, despite all his talk of aspiring to be a good little Christian.
I secretly desire that he and I run wildly through fields of wheat, topless and holding hands. But don't worry, Grandma, we won't do anything too untoward until after we're married.
P.S. I have considered your request to be let out of the basement. Your request is denied. You should have thought about that before you dared to cross me when I was five years-old by presuming that you had the authority to dictate to me when to tidy my room.
Sincerely,
Sapientia
BuxtebuddhaNovember 20, 2017 at 14:34#1258830 likes
Ah, the shoutbox's routine bout of self-loathing and disdain for Western civilization. The classic.
Yes, a man like Newton who devoted years to investigating the Number of the Beast and similar matters was certainly very much devoted and interested in religion.
that crediting religion with their scientific accomplishments is an example of the genetic fallacy.
Yeah, just like you crediting secularism with whatever you've credited it with :-}
The fact of the matter is that these people did see themselves as doing science as a duty and service to God. That's why they were engaged in science, to begin with. Do you deny that?
If anything, such behaviour should be punished according to the law, until they learn to protest in a decent way as civilised human beings. If you cannot behave in a civilised manner, I don't see why others ought to behave in a civilised manner to you.
"Savage" can be represented in many ways and it is you that is savage. You say that I think the world revolves around me, but it is you who is attempting to enforce your Christian values onto everyone assuming that you are somehow morally superior as narcissists do and then have the audacity to project your madness by stating:
I have no time for narcissistic loud-mouthed people who lack self-control and are purely self-interested.
You are epic in your fallacious and innocuous thinking that lacks common sense and whether you are doing this on purpose or not, it is impossible to beat an ignorant man in argument.
I am a woman and would be wrong no matter what I say or do and no matter what I say or do I will always be wanting all men to be thinking of me according to you, which is no different to your cab driver. You are a liar, nothing more.
Other people can be patient with your bullshit and joke about it, but you are an ugly person.
StreetlightNovember 20, 2017 at 17:26#1258960 likes
"Savage" can be represented in many ways and it is you that is savage. You say that I think the world revolves around me, but it is you who is attempting to enforce your Christian values onto everyone assuming that you are somehow morally superior as narcissists do and then have the audacity to project your madness by stating:
Well, I freely admit to wanting to impose the values of my civilisation on people who want to live in it - because it is what holds us together, AND because I think they're the right values, by and large. If they don't like the values of Western society, which are based upon our Judaeo-Christian tradition, then they should move to a different place - or respect those values even if they disagree with them - or critique those values based on their internal coherence all the while respecting them until they can be changed.
And you can be an atheist and still respect Judaeo-Christian values for example. You can still be tolerant, decent, polite, moral, etc. Those values really have to do with how you act, not what you profess to believe, because, as it has already been said, tolerance within limits and forgiveness of repentant sinners is part of the essence of Christianity.
But going with your breasts entirely NAKED out in the street, is, like Muhammad Ali said, what savages do - not what civilised people do. Like it or not, there are some standards in society. If you don't respect them, that means that you don't want to be part of that society.
I am a woman and would be wrong no matter what I say or do and no matter what I say or do I will always be wanting all men to be thinking of me according to you
Other people can be patient with your bullshit and joke about it, but you are an ugly person.
Okay fine. Why do you think I care what you think about me? :s I will answer before God, not before you. I actually find it a bit hilarious that you think I'm an ugly person to tell you the truth.
And by the way, I've met manipulators like you many times. You're all two a dime, I'm not scared of you or what you think of me. You may get a head start over me, because typically people believe you at first, cause you always play the victim, but over time they start to realise who you really are, and also who I really am. Then they can make up their own minds.
Why do you think people don't take you seriously anymore?
I assumed that you were meant to first get to know a person in order to understand the games that they play since the intent behind those games are entirely sexual, which requires permission that I am clearly not ready to give to someone who I am not friends with.
It is true that men want to have sex, but it is untrue they all only want to have sex. Men desperately want to be in relationships, and to the extent you believe otherwise, you are a knower of nothing.
There are certainly intentional game players who plot and scheme, but the majority of games are borne out of insecurity. If you delay in response to a text or feign disinterest, that could be that you learned at some point that you are to be the mouse and he the cat and you insist that game be played. More than likely though, you simply wish to keep your emotions close to your vest and not declare too clearly that you are really interested in him because that would make you terribly vulnerable and subject to being taken advantage of or being hurt. Do you not profess your undying love for him because you want to leave him guessing, or is it because you fear he won't reciprocate or, even worse, that he will pretend to reciprocate so that he can take whatever it is that he wants from you? The point being that what you call a game is just a sincere and genuine maneuver to promote the relationship but also to protect against being hurt, embarrassed, or feeling stupid.
I get that you want to be friends before being in an intimate relationship, but "friendship" is subject to definition, and I don't believe most people start out platonically and end up sexual, but that they start out with some sort of sexual chemistry, continue through to getting to know each other, and, if all moves forward, eventually to sexually. So, yeah, I agree, you should like before you love, but the like I have for a prospective girlfriend is a whole different sort of like than I have for my guy friends.
I'd hate to think these are pearls before swine, so please pay close attention to the wisdom I impart.
Savage" can be represented in many ways and it is you that is savage. You say that I think the world revolves around me, but it is you who is attempting to enforce your Christian values onto everyone assuming that you are somehow morally superior as narcissists do and then have the audacity to project your madness by stating:
There is actually a debatable issue here beneath all the back and forth sanctimony.
Should we concede that women are being discriminated against and should we concede they have the right to protest, we need not concede there are no limits to the form of the protest they can make. We can concede that holding up signs is acceptable, and we can concede that lying on the street naked with one's ankles behind one's ears is not acceptable, thus making the points in between subject to debate. That is, I'm not so comfortable having bare-chested women with the word "slut" written across their bodies parading in the town square, and I think I can say this without being sexist and without being a religious rightwing nut job. A remedy can be worse than the wrong it seeks to cure. There's no justification in curing the cancer but killing the patient.
I say all this fully believing that Agu is small minded, short sighted, disrespectful, and not worth debating.
We are on a philosophy forum. How ridiculous are you with your moral superiority and delusions of grandeur and how ridiculous that you should think being sexist enough to have the capacity to say:
I know you want the whole world, including all men, to be thinking of you,
All because I asked to you explain why you think you have the right to enforce your cultural values onto anyone? This is you being sexist and thinking that somehow you have a right to say that and this:
If you want to freely impose the "values of my civilisation on people who want to live in it - because it is what holds us together" at least say those values are what holds your community together as there is no 'us' here. These women are protesting the creation of the 'Other' and in this case the Other are women because any woman who does not appear to the standards you expect must be bad, wrong, evil, even if they are not. They protest naked because they are a body, a sexual object and forced into a category where no rights or thoughts or opinions of their own are allowed. They are sluts by default.
I am done with you. There is no possible way of having a conversation with you.
I think the claim is that the morphological variations in humans are not extreme enough to warrant an additional taxonomic rank (below that of sub-species), which is what a biological race would be.
No, it would be above it. Species > race > subspecies. I agree, though, that it's now a mostly useless term. I wish people stopped talking about it, as Morgan Freeman says:
in the historical use of the term based on phenotypic classification
That's not historical. That's the normative definition right now. When MLK said that we should judge people by their characters, not the color of their skin, he was saying that a person's race, biologically speaking, amounts to nothing more than a set of rather meaningless physical attributes. There's nothing more to it than that. Whatever else people think race is must therefore be socially constructed.
I am white with freckles and someone else might be white with freckles, but genetically that has absolutely no relevance to any racial identification and would be an invalid designation that I belong under a particular genetic category.
Who said anything about genetics? Again, you're trying to knock down a definition of race that has already been repudiated.
This is the Shoutbox :s - you go horsing around with [s]Sean Hannity[/s] Hanover all the time around here, why can't I have a less serious discussion here with people than on the rest of the forums? Time to wake up to reality.
The rest of your post is empty drivel and not worth my time addressing all those lies and slander. Believe what you want.
Not to mention that you cannot even put together a logical train of thought, judging solely from the above. No doubt that now you'll go on hysterically about how it is that it's because you're a woman that you cannot put together a logical train of thought and other such bullshit that I've never suggested... :-d
You really are one of a kind, I have to tell you. Hopefully you at least believe your own lies.
But don't worry, in a little while you'll send me a PM apologising, as you often do... It would be better if that moral consciousness (oh dear, I'm starting to sound like you :-! ) of yours could get you to behave decently and in a civilised manner from the beginning rather than going around and apologising after the fact all the time.
Should we concede that women are being discriminated against and should we concede they have the right to protest, we need not concede there are no limits to the form of the protest they can make
Nudity as a form of protest is an expression characterised in a highly sexualised format for a reason as it is aesthetically intended to highlight oppression and why bodies are often decorated with horrendous words like "sluts" or bruises and scars. It is an accessible form of protest to explain their plight and indeed as I had already stated after being forced to deal with one ridiculous post after the next that attempted to shadow this argument by consistently attacking me, is that I too would never protest in such a manner but I am not against it. Just as much as I am not against a person who may dress or wear clothes differently as a protest to social "fashion" and appearances.
Power has always been over a person' body, whether it is the right to have sex with who you want, to have a child, or even any control of your movements and choices and such protest is revealing this conflict together with the objectification of the female body. Millions upon millions of women are raped, sold into sexual exploitation, and experience domestic violence where so many are killed by an intimate partner and so comparatively the protest itself makes sense. What they are trying to do is de-sexualise their bodies.
This meaning has been rejected both culturally or scientifically.
I think we are in agreement but somehow are lost in the ambiguity of the definition. What do you think of this:
"Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits"
This biological essentialism (or determinism) is the primary impetus behind contributions to racism.
Millions upon millions of women are raped, sold into sexual exploitation, and experience domestic violence where so many are killed by an intimate partner and so comparatively the protest itself makes sense.
Riiiiiiiight, therefore let's go with our breasts out around town, that's certainly a smart solution. Did that take a lot of thought to come up with?
Going with your breasts completely naked around town with the word "slut" written on you does nothing to reduce the number of raped women, women sold into sexual exploitation, or women experiencing domestic violence. So either you are irrational, or you're really doing that for other reasons. I suspect those other reasons involve rebelling for the sake of it, and seeking a way to feel powerful over other people, showing that you don't have to obey the standards that the rest of your society obeys - in other words, pure mockery. That's not admirable.
If you want to protest against the exploitation of women that's great, but please do it in a civilised manner that actually helps get something done.
Nudity as a form of protest is an expression characterised in a highly sexualised format for a reason as it is aesthetically intended to highlight oppression and why bodies are often decorated with horrendous words like "sluts" or bruises and scars.
We all know the reason. Its effectiveness as a means of instigating change is what matters, and I see no evidence that it does anything of the sort. Quite the contrary seems true: it likely turns more people off to their message. It certainly does me, honestly.
What they are trying to do is de-sexualise their bodies.
By sexualizing their bodies... Rule 34 and human nature dictate that there are people with an exhibitionism fetish who are getting off to such displays.
If they wanted to desexualize their bodies and help reduce the objectification of women, dressing modestly and recommending other women do the same would be the most logical means of action. Feminine modesty is almost a lost virtue and so profoundly counter-cultural, which would likely appeal to their type as well. In today's sexually saturated and "liberated" society, which has "feminists" defending things like pornography, prostitution, fornication, etc, I wonder if the objection to the word "slut" is in fact an apologia for and attempt at normalizing the behaviors that fall under that term; in other words, to have one's cake and eat it too. Women who dress provocatively but who would complain about being objectified by the male gaze are all too common now.
If they wanted to desexualize their bodies and help reduce the objectification of women, dressing modestly and recommending other women do the same would be the most logical means of action.
Obviously. So from this we can only conclude that what they're after really is something quite different.
So either you are irrational, or you're really doing that for other reasons. I suspect those other reasons involve rebelling for the sake of it, and seeking a way to feel powerful over other people, showing that you don't have to obey the standards that the rest of your society obeys - in other words, pure mockery. That's not admirable.
It is an accessible form of protest to explain their plight and indeed as I had already stated after being forced to deal with one ridiculous post after the next that attempted to shadow this argument by consistently attacking me, is that I too would never protest in such a manner but I am not against it.
I didn't attack you. I'm not infused with self-righteous prudishness and couldn't care any less how you behave sexually. I'd think no more or less of you if protested naked. I can't shoulder the nonsense imparted upon you by other posters.Quoting TimeLine
Millions upon millions of women are raped, sold into sexual exploitation, and experience domestic violence where so many are killed by an intimate partner and so comparatively the protest itself makes sense. What they are trying to do is de-sexualise their bodies.
This isn't responsive because it just tells me that terrible things happen and that it's proper to protest those terrible things. It doesn't offer any meaningful criteria for limiting the form of the protest other than saying that you personally don't find nudity so far from accepted norms that it should be considered a forbidden form of protest against really terrible things. My question is, should women be permitted to perform sadomasochistic sexual acts in the street to let us know that women are terribly mistreated or do you have some limit? If you do have some limit, you need to justify it and explain why my limit in not permitting topless female nudity is too limiting. And really, it's more than that. You need to explain why your limit is respectful of feminism and mine not and why it's not just a matter of personal preference what we're each allowing others to engage in.
This biological essentialism (or determinism) is the primary impetus behind contributions to racism.
Of a certain kind, yes. It depends on what is said to be biologically determined. Race defined as skin color and other physical attributes is most definitely biologically determined. Race defined as a set of behaviors correlated with people who have a certain set of physical attributes is socially constructed, for the behaviors in question are not biologically determined. Scientific racism, to which you have repeatedly alluded, is the view that there is causation, not merely correlation, between the two. That notion has been thoroughly junked by science.
I didn't attack you. I'm not infused with self-righteous prudishness and couldn't care any less how you behave sexually. I'd think no more or less of you if protested naked. I can't shoulder the nonsense imparted upon you by other posters.
In what part of my response was there any implication that I believed you were attacking me? Or, was that just a false dilemma?
We all know the reason. Its effectiveness as a means of instigating change is what matters, and I see no evidence that it does anything of the sort. Quite the contrary seems true: it likely turns more people off to their message. It certainly does me, honestly.
The effectiveness of instigating any change through protest is very difficult to ascertain so I am uncertain as to how you have managed to conclude the 'contrary' unless you have some sort of control here and that would mean that you have evidence of the contrary. Would you care to elucidate? The reasoning behind these 'shock' tactics is methodical in attracting public attention even if the attention itself is negative as it subtly raises that there is an issue. Amina Tyler from Tunisia has certainly proved to be an instigator of this change.
My question is, should women be permitted to perform sadomasochistic sexual acts in the street to let us know that women are terribly mistreated or do you have some limit? If you do have some limit, you need to justify it and explain why my limit in not permitting topless female nudity is too limiting.
This is a valid question and I understand what you are referring to but women who do protest nude are still bound by the law and are/can be arrested or fined for indecent exposure or other legal standards depending on whether breasts or being topless is considered prohibitive. My position on protesting topless is the same - what the law dictates - but whether it is immoral or not vis-a-vis decency is questionable; a man and a woman having dry sex with clothes on in public is indecent because the act itself is motivated for a different reason.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 21, 2017 at 00:03#1259990 likes
Naked women in public with their cans hanging out - women's rights, fock yeah!
Naked men in public with their johnsons gleaming proudly - men are rapists, arrest them!
Naked women in public with their cans hanging out - women's rights, fock yeah!
Naked men in public with their johnsons gleaming proudly - men are rapists, arrest them!
Got any example of this double standard?
BuxtebuddhaNovember 21, 2017 at 02:01#1260230 likes
Reply to Akanthinos Yeah, one moment, let me whip my dick out in public and see how that goes. I'm just sure that TimeLine would support me protesting for men's rights in that way.
AkanthinosNovember 21, 2017 at 02:20#1260300 likes
Yeah, one moment, let me whip my dick out in public and see how that goes. I'm just sure that TimeLine would support me protesting for men's rights in that way.
Do you have a legitimate issue that you could meaningfully engage by walking in the street naked? I mean, you mentioned MRA, so I could just assume that no, you don't.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 21, 2017 at 02:32#1260310 likes
Reply to Akanthinos No, I don't, and neither do women who sharpie slut on their bellies and bear their boobs in public. End of story.
AkanthinosNovember 21, 2017 at 02:46#1260330 likes
Well, perhaps a larger part of the male population needs to learn how to express desire in a way that doesn't make girls want to gag?
What makes me want to gag, as a male who views lust as a vice and something to be put under control, are women who frolic around with a feigned blissful unawareness that they are dressing in a manner designed explicitly to excite the male sexual impulse.
The effectiveness of instigating any change through protest is very difficult to ascertain so I am uncertain as to how you have managed to conclude the 'contrary' unless you have some sort of control here and that would mean that you have evidence of the contrary.
My evidence would be myself, my immediate family, my coworkers, and my intuition about the reaction of most other people in wider circles of association and acquaintance. The people who condone and cheer on such protests are in the minority. I have no hard data, though.
All the burkas in the world won't stop women from being hot. Just like female octopodes are to male ones. I was working with this little Iranian guy this one time, and it was raining out, and then he was all like "you know what's really hot? When like women are in the rain, and their burkas are like clinging to their bodies", and I couldn't help but laugh right at him.
What makes me want to gag, as a male who views lust as a vice and something to be put under control, are women who frolic around with a feigned blissful unawareness that they are dressing in a manner designed explicitly to excite the male sexual impulse.
Better start stockpiling Gravol, or otherwise you'll drown in a sea of your own barf. Times, they are changing (in mini-skirts).
Here are my enumerated thoughts.
1. Women experience greater limitations in society than men realize. If offered the choice of gender, choosing male would offer you an easier life.
2. It is possible to be normal, healthy, and moral while expresssing your sexuality outside a marriage.
3. Rules regulating female sexuality are largely designed to relegate females to lesser and subservient roles than men.
4. Men are complex creatures, fully confused by women and desirious of much more from women than sex.
5. The women in my life drive me crazy and it's not fun except when it is and then it's real fun but Jesus I'm not sure the not fun outweighs the fun.
6. Timeline, a navel pic, please?
Women experience greater limitations in society than men realize. If offered the choice of gender, choosing male would offer you an easier life.
Really? Men pick up all the garbage, construct all the buildings, fix all the buildings, fight all the fires, mine all the coal, fight all the wars, live shorter lives, commit most of the suicides, etc. In short, they have the colossal burden of keeping civilization afloat without a word of thanks, most living lives of quiet desperation, and yet you have the gall to say that "women experience greater limitations in society." What society is that? Saudi Arabian society? Yeah, sure. But not in the West. Women in the West have been offered the choice, and they've most notably chosen not to do any of the things I just mentioned, exceptions notwithstanding.
Moreover, is it any wonder that when one hears the phrase "transgender person" one immediately thinks of a transgender woman? I don't know what the ratio of transgender men to women is, but I suspect there are far more of the latter than the former, which makes sense in light of the above.
Reply to Thorongil Indeed. Here's a book review you might like: Howard Schwartz
reviews The New Politics of Sex: The Sexual Revolution, Civil Liberties, and The Growth of Governmental Power by Stephen Baskerville.
The book is, among other things, a discussion of the increasingly disadvantaged role of men. It's in today's issue of Quillette
Thing is, that "mate choice copying" is a thing. Having lived a sheltered life, you must have at least seen that episode of Seinfeld where George got a personal photo of a model from Jerry, and was using it at model parties saying it was his ex in order to attract women there.
Also why we have like Justin Bieber phenomena without any male version equivolant of that, despite males supposedly being the desiring, pursuing ones. Most guys want a lot more than sex from women, but are people like JB likely to?
It's also a better life. That's why orthodox Jewish men say that prayer thanking God they weren't born as women. Of course, if a Jewish man had been born as a woman, he would feel like he was born in the wrong body and would want to be returned to dickdom as soon as possible. I knew a secular Jewish woman who became a very orthodox man. He was much happier that way.
Reply to Wosret Also, you know Seinfeld wasn't a documentary. (Though for silliness, there's nothing better. I also liked the episode where Elaine says to the woman looking for her "baybay" i.e., boyfriend, "Maybe the dingo ate yo baybay." )
Reply to Bitter Crank Elaine was amazing. When she shuts down the soup nazi, that is legend. Easily my favorite character on there... damn tv sucks now.
Reply to Wosret She really was. Seinfeld had a lot of good lines and really super delivery. George was the ordinary deluded guy. Kramer was reliably off the wall -- great body humor.
But Elaine... just perfect.
Noble DustNovember 21, 2017 at 05:54#1260670 likes
If Agustino said that "all black people are manipulative" I wonder what your reaction would have been. Indeed, sexism is entrenched.
Oh yeah, cause Agustino said that "all women are manipulative", totally, suuuuuure - please do tell us what substance you're smoking there, it must be quite potent >:O >:O
You're getting to the level of ridiculous where all someone can do is laugh. Agustino said that YOU - TimeLine - are manipulative. Sorry to break this to you, but you aren't all women, not even close. But I do understand that your narcissistic personality probably causes you to identify yourself with all women.
And I get along very well with most women, even here. For example, I said an inappropriate thing to Tiff awhile ago (at any rate something that she didn't appreciate in that context), and she reprimanded me, so I removed that post when I realised it was inappropriate and apologised to her. Someone's gender doesn't concern me. You are manipulative not because you are a woman, but simply because that's how you behave. You seek to turn the whole environment into something that fits you perfectly, and you do so rapaciously, without concern for the needs of others. Your so-called moral consciousness is bunk - you display your (lack of) moral consciousness everytime you seek to eradicate everyone who disagrees with you by labelling them sexist, racist, etc. But "moral consciousness" is a useful political tool for you, that's all - everyone who TimeLine can boss around has moral consciousness, anyone who she can't boss around doesn't. That's all it is.
women who do protest nude are still bound by the law and are/can be arrested or fined for indecent exposure or other legal standards
When Agustino says they should be punished according to the law that's sexism, but when TimeLine says the same thing, that's all fine, no problems there :B
I'll go first: What's the value added by this squirrel and how much of that value should flow to the person that paid up capital for it? Why is that fair?
Also, if you think squirrels are stupid, then you haven't watched the Rick & Morty show, which is a must if you want to survive squirrel world domination:
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 21, 2017 at 11:54#1261220 likes
Would it be lacking all class if after spending the last 8 weeks doing landscaping on the ranch and now the last week on the house, yesterday 8 hours cleaning, another 8 hours of cooking today, followed by hosting Thanksgiving for 20 on Thursday, that I go out of town to my best friends cabin for a few days to unwind and rejuvenate?
Really? Men pick up all the garbage, construct all the buildings, fix all the buildings, fight all the fires, mine all the coal, fight all the wars, live shorter lives, commit most of the suicides, etc. In short, they have the colossal burden of keeping civilization afloat without a word of thanks, most living lives of quiet desperation, and yet you have the gall to say that "women experience greater limitations in society."
All you've said here is that men have greater job opportunities. None of those jobs are obligatory and men have no imposed burden to keep civilization afloat. They can, and often are, lazy and don't work at all. Quoting Thorongil
Moreover, is it any wonder that when one hears the phrase "transgender person" one immediately thinks of a transgender woman? I don't know what the ratio of transgender men to women is, but I suspect there are far more of the latter than the former, which makes sense in light of the above.
The reason that men become women at higher rates than women becoming men has nothing at all to do with the man trying to gain societal power and the woman wishing to absolve herself of the burden of being female. It has to do with male sexuality and how it differs from female sexuality.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 21, 2017 at 16:26#1261290 likes
I've been listening to too much Bill Burr to keep myself from laughing at some you.
Framer was kind of a dick in real life, but a good character, that had some good moments. I think that Jerry and Elaine just got to play themselves, whereas most everyone else had to play characters.
I'll go first: What's the value added by this squirrel and how much of that value should flow to the person that paid up capital for it? Why is that fair?
Guess it would depends on how many nuts it has.
Also :"
-"We need to pick up a new pope in case the Exxon-Monsanto thing falls off"
-"Why not just use chemtrails?"
"
has got to be one of my favourite fiction line ever written.
Noble DustNovember 22, 2017 at 04:18#1262140 likes
If your art is being funny, which is the case with Micheal Richard, and then everyone notices that the person is in reality very crude and unfunny, then it's hard not link the two.
Noble DustNovember 22, 2017 at 04:35#1262190 likes
If the best a humorist can retort to "you ain't funny" is "go get lynched", then he's not that great of an artist, is he?
Again, that just reflects his personal morals (moral failure in this instance), and I don't see the direct connection between personal morals and artistic ability.
But Richards is of course an actor; he might have a stand up background, I don't actually know, but at any rate, he's specifically known for being an actor of comedy, not a writer of comedy. His art as a comedic actor is to make someone else's text hilarious, and he was always considered a great success at that job. So how does the fact that he made an egregious racist comment negate his previous success at comedically interpreting a script written by someone else? That's actually a complete non sequitur.
AkanthinosNovember 22, 2017 at 06:46#1262310 likes
So how does the fact that he made an egregious racist comment negate his previous success at comedically interpreting a script written by someone else? That's actually a complete non sequitur.
Richards is a screenwriter as well as an actor. The reason why that's not generally known is because he is a bad screenwriter. The Micheal RIchards Show was terrible and got cancelled immediatly. I guess Airheads got a bit of cult value, but that's like saying Paulie Shore's got cult value.
He's not that great of a comedian actor either. Kramer was loved. Otherwise, you got to choose between minor roles in Coneheads and So I married an axe murderer.
In any case, I've never found him to be funny, either as Kramer or as anything else. Seinfeld probably never made me laugh. I'd quite literally prefer to watch Sex and the City.
Noble DustNovember 22, 2017 at 07:04#1262360 likes
Lots of interesting pop culture info, and some info on your personal preferences. No issue there. But still no argument about the problem of the morality of artists vs. their art.
I'll take a provocative photo of my elbow if you take one of the back of your knee because we like to frolic around sexualising our bodies - rule 34 remember, exhibitionism fetish - whilst pretending to blissful awareness that our intent is designed explicitly to excite the male sexual impulse. And by male sexual impulse I mean @Baden because, well, let's admit it now shall we, all this is for him.
There are certainly intentional game players who plot and scheme, but the majority of games are borne out of insecurity... More than likely though, you simply wish to keep your emotions close to your vest and not declare too clearly that you are really interested in him because that would make you terribly vulnerable and subject to being taken advantage of or being hurt.
Intentional games are borne from lies despite it being causally linked to insecurity and that, to me, is the problem. Such men can cheat on their partners or even worse can feign happiness with someone they probably can't stand because that is what they do, play games. Children that compulsively lie may be borne out of the fear of getting into trouble and we can sympathise because they probably have a domineering parent, but it doesn't make the act a good thing. I like the intentional sexual innuendos and believe it would be a natural part of a loving relationship, but it is supposed to come afterwards, when we want to move it to the next level. You need to be friends, man, get it already.
Anyway, the reason why I mention this is because I am on a long train ride home and my manager asked us to take a Myer Briggs test for a team exercise we'll be doing next week and while I found the notion of doing this irksome, I was thoroughly intrigued by the result. I am apparently an 'advocate' or INFJ and they are rare and you came to mind because under "relationships" it wrote the following, which perhaps explains me better than I have been:
When it comes to romantic relationships, INFJs take the process of finding a partner seriously. Not ones for casual encounters, people with the INFJ personality type instead look for depth and meaning in their relationships. INFJs will take the time necessary to find someone they truly connect with – once they’ve found that someone, their relationships will reach a level of depth and sincerity that most people can only dream of. Getting to that point can sometimes be a challenge for potential partners, especially if they are the impatient type, as INFJs are often perfectionistic and picky. People with this personality type aren’t easily talked into something they don’t want, and if someone doesn’t pick up on that, it’s a trespass that is unlikely to be forgiven, particularly in the early stages of dating. Even worse is if a suitor tries to resort to manipulation or lying, as INFJs will see right through it, and if there’s anything they have a poor tolerance for in a relationship, it is inauthenticity.
One of the things INFJs find most important is establishing genuine, deep connections with the people they care about.
INFJs will go out of their way to seek out people who share their desire for authenticity, and out of their way to avoid those who don’t, especially when looking for a partner. All that being said, INFJs often have the advantage of desirability – they are warm, friendly, caring and insightful, seeing past facades and the obvious to understand others’ thoughts and emotions.
INFJs are enthusiastic in their relationships, and there is a sense of wisdom behind their spontaneity, allowing them to pleasantly surprise their partners again and again. INFJs aren’t afraid to show their love, and they feel it unconditionally, creating a depth to the relationship that can hardly be described in conventional terms. Relationships with INFJs are not for the uncommitted or the shallow.
People with the INFJ personality type are passionate partners, and see intimacy as a way to express their love and to make their partners happy. INFJs cherish not just the act of being in a relationship, but what it means to become one with another person, in mind, body and soul.
Noble DustNovember 22, 2017 at 07:51#1262450 likes
Two of my best friends from my home town were supposedly INTJ's; one clearly so, and the other, not so clearly. You probably have a personality, it just takes a lot to coax it out. Self-discovery! Let's go!
AkanthinosNovember 22, 2017 at 09:53#1262690 likes
I tested 3 times over the course of the last decade. Got INTJ twice then INTP.
I couldn't tell what it means. I guess I trust MBTI a bit further than any other personality test out there.
The categories seems to make sense.
I don't mind it; I liked it more some years ago in college when it seemed to be more significant. I still identify to some degree with mine; at worst, it certainly provides some sort of grid with which to map oneself if you're in need of such a grid.
I'm an INFP. Supposedly, I'm the same type of one of your favorites, Reply to Agustino: Kierkegaard...
'll take a provocative photo of my elbow if you take one of the back of your knee because we like to frolic around sexualising our bodies -
I will take one at some point today and I'll have a reveal. I know you find this a delicious teaser.Quoting TimeLine
Intentional games are borne from lies despite it being causally linked to insecurity and that, to me, is the problem.
Your analysis is nothing short of delicious.
I'm an INTJ (for real), which, as you can imagine, is better than your piddly letters. Here's what it says about me.
"INTJs are deliciously sexual beings, each better endowed than the next. INFJs, while typically discriminating, will abandon all principle when confronted with an INTJ and will animalistically seek immediate pregnancy. Both ought be careful, as the potency of the INTJ baby batter is legendary, most often leading to large litters of well endowed delicious children.
An INTJ will seek a Baden due to his inherent wonderballs sassiness and will delight in his jazzy deliciousness. An INTJ has no time for the mundane relationship, but expects his lover to be tall and svelt with tight cropped hair and sport an Irish accent like a silly leprechan with a magical staff.
INTJs, while described typically in colorful terms overheard when homosexuals are shoe shopping with their BFFs that they just could not live without, also have a dark side stereotyped by drunken tragedies with blood soaked rags and spent whipped cream can strewn about on the floor and let's just say, someone will come up missing. "
It's uncanny how close this is to my life. I have goosebumps.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 22, 2017 at 12:11#1262920 likes
I read this and remembered back to this years Wounded Warrior Ride that GW Bush has at his ranch every year. They began years ago calling it PTSD and then dropped the D of Disorder because the feeling was that it limited the person with PTS to heal and grow with the PTS. Then this year I heard a new term PTG - Post Traumatic Growth and was excited to hear that it is possible for those suffering with PTS, to extrapolate the positive from what has always been viewed as a very negative experience. (L)
"Stay away from her or what I'll do to you will make Jeffrey Dahmer's skeleton blush."
a joke or not? :s
(Please put Jeffrey back by the way. It's just...uncouth.)
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 22, 2017 at 13:02#1262990 likes
I would like to let my family here at TPF know how very grateful I am to have each and every one of you in my life, on a daily basis. Many of us have been here together a long time, decade plus for most, so I want you to know, is that I genuinely appreciate you being a constant in my life~ So before things get crazy in my face-to-face life interactions, I wanted to wish all of our members here a very Happy Thanksgiving~ Cheers~ (L)
Fine, I'll get all my friends in a room and have sex with them. I'll wear an old school sweat band around my head so that I do get my head drippings on my friends. That'd be way rude.
"Stay away from her or what I'll do to you will make Jeffrey Dahmer's skeleton blush."
a joke or not? :s
(Please put Jeffrey back by the way. It's just...uncouth.)
As an aside, I was looking up the most offensive terms in the English language, and I came upon the Alabama Hot Pocket, an idea even more perverse than I could have arrived at. Take a look see. You'll be delighted.
It's that time of year guys. Thanksgiving, a day devoted to remembering what we have to be thankful for. Here are the 10 things I'm thankful for. This list in all inclusive.
1. I'm thankful for those who have died and whose abandoned wealth has benefitted me.
2. I'm thankful for those who have suffered silently to where I didn't have to hear them.
3. I'm thankful for those whose depression have left them homebound and out of my way.
4. I'm thankful for those who have left their loves ones and befriended me to fill the void in their lives.
5. I'm thankful for those whose homes have burned to the ground so that I could feel better about me not having a burned down house.
6. I'm thankful for those whose cars have become disabled and allowed me quicker access to work.
7. I'm thankful for those whose dogs have run away so that I could see cute dog pictures posted on telephone poles.
8. I'm thankful for those who have fallen to the ground because it's pretty funny watching people fall to the ground.
9. I'm thankful for the poor who make me feel good when I throw a can of food in a box for them to eat.
10. I'm thankful for the stupid people who do the jobs beneath me.
Lol, I was only thinking about the bloopers, and how serious, and aggressive he is, not liking others to break character, and Elaine broke character the most, laughing, and he's constantly insulting and feigning hitting her.
I forgot all about that racist stuff, lol. I wasn't making some moralizing judgment, more than was just thinking that I thought he was kind of a dick because of how he acted with Elaine in bloopers.
Yeah, she was the best. I never watched her new show where she's some politician though, I wonder if it is any good.
Reply to Agustino I just email the pictures from my phone and get them on my laptop later. There are also clouds, but I don't much like having all of my photos indiscriminately uploaded onto the internet...
Did you have it from a young age, and with no other pets? Because it can be hard for them, if even possible to become close with other animals if they weren't introduced to them while still young enough.
Did you have it from a young age, and with no other pets? Because it can be hard for them, if even possible to become close with other animals if they weren't introduced to them while still young enough.
Hmm, no I took her when she was a little older. She grew up with one other dog, her brother (I don't own him, he's with a family friend). But she doesn't tolerate other animals well (apart from her brother, obviously).
She's also not very disciplined and likes to attack even me :-O - I always have to wrestle with her.
Just to comment on that, I decided to return to college to pursue a degree in philosophy. Long road ahead; but, at least it's something I see myself doing with ease and modest pleasure.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 22, 2017 at 16:54#1263520 likes
I'll take a provocative photo of my elbow if you take one of the back of your knee because we like to frolic around sexualising our bodies - rule 34 remember, exhibitionism fetish - whilst pretending to blissful awareness that our intent is designed explicitly to excite the male sexual impulse.
:-} Don't you rich Americans want to donate a little to the poorer areas of the world?
Reply to Sapientia
Looks like a cute demon. I'm more surprised by the gun-wielding Sappy who likes to come here and scream about US Second Amendment Rights >:)
If you are ready to exile yourself and learn another language, you can add to your chances of making a life's work out of your philosophy studies. A few countries make it mandatory for college kids to take at least a certain number of philosophy classes (3 in Quebec, for example). That means those colleges needs about as many Philosophy teachers as they have French and English teachers.
Last I checked employement rating for graduates here was 80% within the year.
Where is that? A flat somewhere in the communist part of England?
Unfortunately not. Not even close. Since the seat in parliament which represents my constituency was created in 1974, it has been held by a Conservative MP for approximately 75% of that time, remains to be held by a Conservative MP today, and has been held by that same Conservative MP for the last 7 years since 2010. That same percentage also represents the approximate share of votes in my constituency for Brexit in the EU referendum.
Looks like a cute demon. I'm more surprised by the gun-wielding Sappy who likes to come here and scream about US Second Amendment Rights. >:)
Surprise! I'm secretly a gun nut, and have been playing a very long game of devil's advocate this whole time. I'm not even from England, I live in Texas.
(It's actually an air pistol, and I've mentioned it here before).
Surprise! I'm secretly a gun nut, and have been playing a very long game of devil's advocate this whole time. I'm not even from England, I live in Texas.
Are rocks conscious? Is life a dream? Will machines take over? Can adversity be beautiful? What's the meaning of life? Does God exist? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Does a bear shit in the woods? Why is a raven like a writing desk? Is a circle a square?
The Philosophy Forum
[I]This may all be pointless[/i]
(It's actually an air pistol, and I've mentioned it here before).
Never seen an "air pistol" with a hammer here in the states., though I do know that there are real 50 Caliber air rifles for Elephant hunting. Is it responsible to aim any weapon at a pet?
Either way, untruth about your "air pistol" or not, you have been involved enough in conversations to understand that you NEVER point an air pistol or any gun at something UNLESS you intend to kill it. Were you planning on killing your pet? Accidents happen, it's the nature of life and the taker of life. Here in the USA and I am guessing in other countries around the world, you pulling your "air pistol" on someone will all but guarantee you to be taken into custody at the best and shot at the worst.
That was clearly an air pistol. I had exactly the same as a kid.
Would shoot strong enough to hurt a pet, but the trigger was pretty hard to pull. Not something you could shoot accidentally. Not like my first paintball marker, for example. One of my friend once shot a painting in our house because he forgot he still had a pellet loaded in the feeder.
No, that was clearly [i]not[/I] an "air pistol". That was clearly a pistol shaped rocket launcher capable of levelling a skyscraper full of elephants with a single blast.
And, besides, what exactly was I supposed to do? [I]She was looking at me funny![/I]
First you tell me I can't starve her, now you tell me I can't point a fully loaded gun at her with intent to kill. Whatever next!
I recall your sentiment towards going after an undergrad or grad degree in philosophy. So, what's the gist of the issue? Is it job-related or how academia is shaped?
If I recall correctly it has to do with academia, right?
Oh lord, what's not wrong with it these days? That would require a post I don't have the time to compose at present. If you Google your question, you will undoubtedly stumble across several reasons.
Reply to Thorongil
Then it seems that that is something I have no control over. So, I might as well suck it up. Let me know your thoughts about this matter. I posted this question here some time ago and I recall that you might have already addressed the point.
Then it seems that that is something I have no control over. So, I might as well suck it up. Let me know your thoughts about this matter. I posted this question here some time ago and I recall that you might have already addressed the point.
My advice is: start the supplement business. You're in Cali, that's almost perfect for that kind of business, great support laws or so I've heard.
Fuck no. Why would we want to do that?
— Bitter Crank
Maybe cause you and the Brits raped the whole planet? >:)
No, we treated the whole world to the benefits of our superior civilisation, sometimes against a little resistance, and with insignificant input from the Americans. Your gratitude is accepted, with condescension, but little enthusiasm.
Sappy, why is your cute kitty sitting so high up? Does it usually do that? I like how it is pure black kitty. >:)
She doesn't do that often. She had a phase where she would jump on top of my wardrobe. My previous cat would also sometimes like to sit and lay high up on top of the cupboards. I think it's natural, perhaps relating to security or getting a vantage point for hunting prey or both. There are some theories out there on the internet for this behaviour.
On another note, you still didn't tell me what's going on with that birdy pic Cranky... :D
You don't like birds? (This is a blue jay -- a member of the fine Corvidae family of squawking, smart birds -- crows, ravens, magpies...) Bright red male cardinals and male bright-blue jays are the preferred birds for winter greeting cards -- pine cones, pine needles, red and blue feathers, white snow... all that.
She had a phase where she would jump on top of my wardrobe.
Your wardrobe would be the items of clothes you wear. Perhaps you meant to say "dresser." Quoting Sapientia
I think it's natural, perhaps relating to security or getting a vantage point for hunting prey or both.
Or, perhaps it's just like your behavior, not linked to some distant evolutionary factor, but simply a stupid choice. If you can have free will, why not your bug eyed cat?
... leading to large litters of well endowed delicious children.
Are you hungry or something? For heavens sake go and eat. I prefer you all wisdom-ish and that appears to only occur those sporadic moments when you have food in you.
Dont you realize that Reply to TimeLine is deeply in love with me? All of your huffing and puffing ultimately amounts to classic INTJ grandstanding; hollow, and made of false dreams, composed of unshed, suppressed tears. My INFP tenderness, supreme wisdom, and soft spoken moral authority always controlled the situation from the start, without you even realizing it, because I never even bothered to throw the gauntlet down.
You don't like birds? (This is a blue jay -- a member of the fine Corvidae family of squawking, smart birds -- crows, ravens, magpies...) Bright red male cardinals and male bright-blue jays are the preferred birds for winter greeting cards -- pine cones, pine needles, red and blue feathers, white snow... all that.
Oh I do like birds, I was just wondering why you chose to put the bird up!
I think it's natural, perhaps relating to security or getting a vantage point for hunting prey or both.
>:) - maybe she wants to hunt you. When I took my dog out for a walk, I let her free at one point and she ran ahead and hid behind a bush, and waited until I passed by it... and then attacked me :-O
No, we treated the whole world to the benefits of our superior civilisation, sometimes against a little resistance, and with insignificant input from the Americans. Your gratitude is accepted, with condescension, but little enthusiasm.
Hahahaha you Brits are so funny, you are always stuck up with a carrot up your bums being like "cup of tea, cup of tea" >:O >:O >:O
I celebrate Thanksgetting where I help out all the givers by offering my services to receive. Since it's better to give than receive, I'm sort of a martyr, demanding shit from others. I get until it hurts.
Dont you realize that ?TimeLine is deeply in love with me? All of your huffing and puffing ultimately amounts to classic INTJ grandstanding; hollow, and made of false dreams, composed of unshed, suppressed tears. My INFP tenderness, supreme wisdom, and soft spoken moral authority always controlled the situation from the start, without you even realizing it, because I never even bothered to throw the gauntlet down.
Never!
Love is your master, for he masters you;
And he that is so yoked by a fool,
Methinks, should not be chronicled for wise.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 24, 2017 at 13:42#1267220 likes
Speaking of Brits, all I can say is that we are on year 9 and there is just now appearing to be a pin hole of light, at the end of an almost decade long, dark, never ending tunnel.
Thanks Tiff, I hope you had a great day. I deboned a 13 lbs. Turkey and brought it over to a friends house, and we all had a grand time. It was a fine day.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 24, 2017 at 17:23#1267430 likes
We had a lovely time. 20 guests, 1 Turkey, 2 Hams, Drunken Cranberries, White Castle stuffing (Chicago represented ;) ) 10 pies (wth?) 5 bottles of wine, one universal Toasting goblet and a world of fun~ Exhausted today (L)
Indeed, that was the intent, reciprocal for your very foul remarks that women are to blame for pretending to ignorance that they behave and dress in a manner intended only to excite the sexual drives of men. It is the same attitude when victims are blamed for being sexually assaulted. YOU are responsible for your own sexual drives even if a thousand women walk past you naked and if not, blaming them will not change your accountability.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 24, 2017 at 20:25#1267870 likes
Reply to TimeLine Dressing like a slut can be and often is a contributing factor in cases of sexual violence. Letting your tits hang out and wearing booty shorts is behavior completely at odds with public decency. As I quipped earlier in this thread, when a woman streaks naked you, TimeLine, are presumably for it, but would you similarly be for men streaking with erect phalli? And say that in both cases they are protesting something. I know, it's outrageous, but I say that both cases aren't appropriate, at all.
Nothing you said was reciprocal. I pointed out a demonstrable fact, which you have simply strawmanned by pretending I was talking about women as a general category. I don't think all women behave the way in which I described. But many of them do. Try denying the claims being made or stop replying to me.
YOU are responsible for your own sexual drives even if a thousand women walk past you naked and if not, blaming them will not change your accountability.
More strawmanning. I never said that one isn't responsible for one's sexual drive. In fact, I implied that one IS thus responsible, since I explicitly said that lust is a vice that ought to be put under control. How you get "that's a waaapist mindset" out of that is beyond me. People who commit rape, real rape, not the title 9 bullshit on the campuses, ought to be castrated or killed, as a certain commentator I follow often says. They are 100% responsible for said crime, not the manner of the woman's appearance. So once again, respond to the claims being made and stop making obscene accusations.
People who commit rape, real rape, not the title 9 bullshit on the campuses, ought to be castrated or killed, as a certain commentator I follow often says. They are 100% responsible for said crime, not the manner of the woman's appearance. So once again, respond to the claims being made and stop making obscene accusations.
What is real rape? Despite your clearly homicidal tendencies (thou shalt not kill?), is this not a verification that you are victim-blaming?
What is real rape? Despite your clearly homicidal tendencies (thou shalt not kill?), is this not a verification that you are victim-blaming?
I don't believe for a second you don't know what rape is. But here's the Department of Justice, in case you really are that woefully ignorant: "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
What the hell? No, the control of lust, a vice. Your reading comprehension is beneath abysmal and not the least bit charitable.
In the event that you see those women who dress in a sexually provocative manner, is it their fault or your problem that you may experience this said-lust?
I don't believe for a second you don't know what rape is. But here's the Department of Justice, in case you really are that woefully ignorant: "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
Now, can you also explain to me the difference between what real rape is vis-a-vis 'title 9 bullshit on campuses'?
Reply to Cavacava I hope that you had the most dreadful Thanksgiving of all time. I hope that its mere recollection will send shivers down your spine. I hope that instead of dining on the flesh of a turkey, you gorged yourself on tainted bait.
YOU are responsible for your own sexual drives even if a thousand women walk past you naked and if not, blaming them will not change your accountability.
Sure it won't change your accountability if you like rape them or something of that nature. But if you commit no crime, while they dressed that way for the purpose of sexually provoking you, then they have done something immoral.
Aren't there women who use their bodies as a weapon to control or dominate men? I suggest you open your eyes and look around, since there are many women who try to do just that.
Dressing like a slut can be and often is a contributing factor in cases of sexual violence.
Well, it's no mystery that some women will abuse their physical beauty to get what they want, just like there are people who abuse their wealth, power, status, etc. I don't see why this wouldn't be the case.
You need demonstration of the fact that some women dress in a sexually provocative manner? Really? Please stop playing dumb.
TimeLine will never give up her weapons. I realised this long ago about her. She seeks to do whatever it takes to build a society where she has power (even if she doesn't use it) and others don't. To her, it's important that she is allowed - if she so decides - to use her beauty to control a man, and the man not being able to do anything about it. It's all politics for her.
In the event that you see those women who dress in a sexually provocative manner, is it their fault or your problem that you may experience this said-lust?
It depends. They provide the occasion for sin, as it were, but I then have the choice of indulging in the sin or not. I don't like objectifying women or treating them as mere means for my viewing pleasure, but when the latter is how many young women deliberately present themselves, it can be difficult maintaining one's integrity. While in college (a state school with a notorious reputation for partying), I would sometimes carry a rubber band in my pocket and snap my wrist if I caught myself gazing inappropriately while walking around campus, in contradistinction to the behavior of my fellow males who had no compunctions about ogling.
Now, can you also explain to me the difference between what real rape is vis-a-vis 'title 9 bullshit on campuses'?
I already gave you the definition of the former. The other concerns the "rape culture" hysteria that has swept college campuses in recent years, which you're welcome to read up on, though I doubt you will. I will say that part of the problem is the postmodernist redefinition of violence as something that can be equated with mere speech that one doesn't like.
Yeah, it must just be my imagination. All women in reality dress like the nuns in that video I linked to you. I just have my patented rapist goggles on, which I received upon being inducted into the patriarchy.
Yeah, it must just be my imagination. All women in reality dress like the nuns in that video I linked to you. I just have my patented rapist goggles on, which I received upon being inducted into the patriarchy.
Yah, I mean there are no women out there who ever thought about using their bodies to provoke sexual desire in men... that's just unheard of, in the entire history of humanity...
YOU are responsible for your own sexual drives even if a thousand women walk past you naked and if not, blaming them will not change your accountability.
I don't know if I understand this. I'm responsible for my behavior, but not urges, at least to the extent they're not intentional. The woman would also not be responsible for eliciting the urge. Responsibility would be lacking entirely if all I did was notice an attractive woman because intentionality is a necassary element of responsibility. That I have the urge to commit any immoral act perhaps speaks to an internal weakness of mine, but the thought isn't immoral without the act, and I'd submit the actor is particularly moral the more he or she defies his or her urges and acts properly.
Realizing that everyone is not moral nor particularly concerned with controlling one's urges, it'd be prudent not to walk with money falling from one's pockets in an impoverished area of town where the urge to steal might be exaggerated due to need, although a thief in every part of town is subject to the same laws.
This is simply to say you may dress as you like, but you will arouse urges as a matter of biological evolution, and should that lead to improper behavior, you will be totally unblameworthy and your perpatrator entirely to blame, but you will nevertheless have exposed yourself to harm simply because there are bad people out there. I get that you shouldn't be required to alter your behavior in consideration of those far beneath you, but that's what we all do when buy locks for our doors isn't it?
StreetlightNovember 25, 2017 at 00:26#1269130 likes
ITT: Bunch of fucking mongoloid pseudo-men incapable of cultivating a healthly relationship with their own desires - or other humans for that matter.
You could try reading the post again and those before it.
Or, you could explain yourself considering that I am apparently unaware of why you decided to "demonstrate" the fact that some women dress in a sexually provocative manner.
I don't like objectifying women or treating them as mere means for my viewing pleasure, but when the latter is how many young women deliberately present themselves, it can be difficult maintaining one's integrity. While in college (a state school with a notorious reputation for partying), I would sometimes carry a rubber band in my pocket and snap my wrist if I caught myself gazing inappropriately while walking around campus, in contradistinction to the behavior of my fellow males who had no compunctions about ogling.
I see some very attractive men and feel nothing because who I feel attracted to follows getting to know them, the person that they are and so my instinctual drives do not control me. Your relationship with the external world relies on this moral apparatus or superego based on your religious position, but done so in a superficial way that you seem to rely on rubber bands around your wrist to snap you back to the notion that you need to control your psychosexual values. This works in stark contrast to your fellow males who respond immediately to their instincts.
You are not whole psychologically if you feel the need to do that.
This is simply to say you may dress as you like, but you will arouse urges as a matter of biological evolution, and should that lead to improper behavior, you will be totally unblameworthy and your perpatrator entirely to blame, but you will nevertheless have exposed yourself to harm simply because there are bad people out there. I get that you shouldn't be required to alter your behavior in consideration of those far beneath you, but that's what we all do when buy locks for our doors isn't it?
We have the cognitive capacity for conscious reflection and a healthy psychology system involves mitigating a balanced relationship between moral consciousness and our instinctual drives. It is not to bury our natural inclination to sexual behaviour - whereby these urges are suppressed and therefore never reaches consciousness because it conflicts with our moral position that make it rationally unacceptable to experience (and why their sexual drives often become pathological in the process) - but to understand our place in an external world so that it does not govern our behaviour. This relationship between our instinctual drives and rational thought is through our capacity to empathise, to understand and reflect and develop healthy objective descriptions. A prostitute has a family, has a past, and what circumstances could have led this girl to what she finds herself in; surely such empathy should remove the sexual instinct and promote moral reflection, just as much as your love for your partner allows you to fulfil your sexual urges in a healthy way.
As for being exposed to harm, most violence against women occurs by people that they know.
Or, you could explain yourself considering that I am apparently unaware of why you decided to "demonstrate" the fact that some women dress in a sexually provocative manner.
How is how a person dresses a sin? That is what I am attempting to ascertain.
I never said anything about the way a person dresses being a sin per se. I said the way a person dresses can be the occasion for sin, that is, the occasion for me to sin by objectifying the person in question. And if that was the intention of the person, then they too are culpable.
but done so in a superficial way that you seem to rely on rubber bands around your wrist to snap you back to the notion that you need to control your psychosexual values.
That isn't the purpose. I already know about the need. It's just a reminder to maintain virtue, though I admit it's fairly superficial compared to the hairshirts of the Middle Ages. Perhaps I should upgrade.
You are not whole psychologically if you feel the need to do that.
Psychological wholeness is predicated on indulging in the objectification of women? You're not making sense here, but then, you haven't done so this entire time.
There are other reasons for women wearing "revealing" clothes than exciting men's sexual urges, such as, for example, the weather, fashion, or maybe the women just felt like it. Blurring the line on the responsibility for sexual assault and / or rape is disgusting. Some of you have already breached the guidelines set regarding sexism in my view. Consider that a warning.
Blurring the line on the responsibility for sexual assault and / or rape is disgusting. Some of you have already breached the guidelines set regarding sexism in my view. Consider that a warning.
A prostitute has a family, has a past, and what circumstances could have led this girl to what she finds herself in; surely such empathy should remove the sexual instinct and promote moral reflection, just as much as your love for your partner allows you to fulfil your sexual urges in a healthy way.
There are 3 classes of prostitutes: The largest class comprising those who, as the result of drugs, abuse, and coercion find themselves in that horrible situation. The smallest group are those who have freely chosen that path despite having other options, and then the middle group who are somewhere between choice and coercion. The unnuanced view that all prostitutes are victims and all their customers unempathetic abusers of sorts is simply a liberalized rationalization for traditional, conservative sexual mores and a projection of your own INFJ stated views on sexuality. To some, sex is just sex, and while that is understandably foriegn to you, you can't just label it "unhealthy" and expect others to adhere to your views simply because you use objective, medical labels.
Does no one read before accusing? I said not long ago: "I don't think all women behave the way in which I described. But many of them do."
StreetlightNovember 25, 2017 at 02:48#1269410 likes
Lol, mongoloid isn't even a real anthropological category, it's just a nice bombastic insult in general. Happy to withdraw it and replace it with 'caveman' or 'basement dwelling Frankenstein's monster' instead if need be.
This is to equate health with immorality. I'm trying to argue against the objectification of women, which is wrong.
It takes a certain kind of sexual-emotional stunting to even think that 'revealing dress' has anything to do with objectification in the first place. That you're so infantile that you can't see an attractive woman without thinking that it's some kind of 'occasion for sin' is your problem and no one else's.
It takes a certain kind of sexual-emotional stunting to even think that 'revealing dress' has anything to do with objectification in the first place. That you're so infantile that you can't see an attractive woman without thinking that it's some kind of 'occasion for sin' is your problem and no one else's.
That you equate "attractive" with "revealing dress" says it all.
StreetlightNovember 25, 2017 at 03:13#1269450 likes
Oh yes I'm positively lecherous darling. This one time, I held hands with a woman, and I wasn't even with my chaperone. I could even see her ankles and everything. You would have found it dastardly. I even shot eyes at a hunky man once, and we gazed at each other longingly from afar. It was like a little slice of heaven.
Psychological wholeness is predicated on indulging in the objectification of women? You're not making sense here, but then, you haven't done so this entire time.
No, it is predicated on the fact that you wear a band around your wrist and flick it each time you see an attractive woman. I am unsure as to how you could possibly think that would make you psychologically whole.
A self-contradiction. You feel attraction toward them, and so not nothing.
There is no contradiction. I said I feel nothing toward very attractive men until I get to know them because I do not objectify them based on their appearances. Your unwarranted inferences are getting boring.
There is no virtue and vice with that point you were attempting to convey, but clearly you see yourself as morally superior. In that example, there was mindlessly instinctual and pathologically repressed, you being the latter and in stark contrast.
There are 3 classes of prostitutes: The largest class comprising those who, as the result of drugs, abuse, and coercion find themselves in that horrible situation. The smallest group are those who have freely chosen that path despite having other options, and then the middle group who are somewhere between choice and coercion. The unnuanced view that all prostitutes are victims and all their customers unempathetic abusers of sorts is simply a liberalized rationalization for traditional, conservative sexual mores and a projection of your own INFJ stated views on sexuality. To some, sex is just sex, and while that is understandably foriegn to you, you can't just label it "unhealthy" and expect others to adhere to your views simply because you use objective, medical labels.
You clearly did not understand the point and I find it ridiculous that you even mentioned so-called 'classes' here; my point was that there is a person there. They have a past, they have parents or a family, so what environmental, social and sociopolitical circumstances led to them selling their bodies just as much as what would compel a man to think he is no longer morally culpable only because he paid money. This diverges into a different subject-matter at this point, but when you have millions of women, children (including boys) being sold into sexual slavery and being conscious that the largest 'class' are a result of abuse and coercion, the nuance behind your sex is just sex is really just intentional ignorance. It is no different to bystanders who can do something but do nothing and then say 'it wasn't me who did it.' So, indeed, sex is just sex, but that is not the problem.
Does no one read before accusing? I said not long ago: "I don't think all women behave the way in which I described. But many of them do."
Racists often make bigoted claims before pretending that they have friends from the said-community to somehow pardon their racism. To say many of them do is as much a problem as saying all.
No, it is predicated on the fact that you wear a band around your wrist and flick it each time you see an attractive woman. I am unsure as to how you could possibly think that would make you psychologically whole.
You make it seem so dramatic. I didn't do it all that often. But tell me, does self-denial or the disciplining of the body and its appetites of any kind, even the most trivial kind as in my example, make one psychologically unwhole? What does that phrase even mean? I think you should address the points I've made on their own terms and not dismiss or deflect from them with armchair psychologizing.
There is no virtue and vice with that point you were attempting to convey, but clearly you see yourself as morally superior.
There's no reason for such an inference. Does the mere attempt to live virtuously constitute moral superiority? No, and that's all I've claimed for myself. I try to live by what is good and right, but that doesn't mean that I always do. You, on the other hand, seem rather assured of yourself on matters both moral and psychological.
there was mindlessly instinctual and pathologically repressed
Hey, thanks for diagnosing me with a mental disease on the basis of a single anecdote given by an anonymous poster on an Internet forum. Freud would blush to see such omniscient diagnostics. In all seriousness, you're saying here that when a man objectifies a woman by lusting after her physical appearance, if he does so with "mindless instinct," then there is nothing wrong with him, whereas there is something wrong with the person, such as myself, who would attempt not to do so. This is quite rich. Who would have thought to see the praise of mindless male instinct! I'm glad I've stuck with this conversation, as the mental gymnastics and self-sabotaging reversals of thought performed just to turn me into the bad guy are really quite spectacular to witness.
To say many of them do is as much a problem as saying all.
Why is it a problem? Do you dispute the claim or not? Your throat clearing preface to this statement about racism makes no sense either, by the way.
ProbablyTrueNovember 25, 2017 at 06:18#1269670 likes
What points exactly are at stake here? That some women dress provocatively to manipulate men sometimes? For those of you arguing that "many women" do this, this is probably being interpreted as "most women" do this. Just because there are a large number of women that do this doesn't mean it's a plurality.
For those of you arguing that women do not do this: have you ever been to a club or a Halloween party? This certainly does occur. This doesn't make them culpable to any action taken against them, but it might make it more likely, and definitely makes it more likely that they'll be objectified. The Shoutbox should be renamed the Bickerbox.
The above conversation highlights the tension in certain minds between supporting, on the one hand, female autonomy and opposing female objectification, on the other. In reality, the two are in conflict. One cannot support the former without allowing for the existence of the latter. The unlimited freedom to choose entails the freedom to choose unwisely. Thus, when I suggest that women ought not to dress in a sexually provocative manner because doing so turns them into mere objects of sexual desire, the value of female autonomy appears threatened. In order to preserve it, the attempt is made to find less vice in the objectification of women than one would otherwise attribute to it. Indeed, any form of opposition to the objectification of women is scornfully dismissed as prudery. But my suggestion does not require opposition to female autonomy, to which I am not in fact opposed. In the end, my integrity remains intact, whereas my opponents have lost all credibility by contradicting themselves.
StreetlightNovember 25, 2017 at 06:58#1269740 likes
The very framing of sexuality as a matter of 'provocation' is already pathetic - as if sex is a field of antagonism and fear (letcherous women 'provoking' poor, poor bestial men), and not one of mutual admiration, play, and confident interaction. As if your so-called analysis reflected anything other than your own total fear and insecurity about the opposite sex qua sexual beings. But then, your problem isn't wholly your own and speaks to millennia of toxic sexual understanding. Too bad you seek to perpetuate it.
The above conversation highlights the tension in certain minds between supporting, on the one hand, female autonomy and opposing female objectification, on the other. In reality, the two are in conflict. One cannot support the former without allowing for the existence of the latter. The unlimited freedom to choose entails the freedom to choose unwisely. Thus, when I suggest that women ought not to dress in a sexually provocative manner because doing so turns them into mere objects of sexual desire, the value of autonomy appears threatened. In order to preserve it, the attempt is made to find less vice in the objectification of women than one would otherwise attribute to it. Indeed, any form of opposition to the objectification of women is scornfully dismissed as prudery. But my suggestion does not require opposition to female autonomy, to which I am not in fact opposed.
There is no conflict except for the one that you have created because if you restrict autonomy then it is no longer autonomy and so you are in fact opposed to it. The regulation of women' autonomy is often reinforced by those who repress their own sexual urges and their distorted moral position is projected to women who are blamed for the anxiety that is produced for feeling these sexual urges; being objectified becomes their fault and they are the "threat" to this so-called moral position that they hold. The reality is blame.
You, on the other hand, seem rather assured of yourself on matters both moral and psychological.
I may not have had sex with men and am dedicated to virtue and justice, but I still wear a bikini, short dresses and have a strong understanding of my sexuality; my underlying existential motivation in all my decisions is love and authenticity not because I follow some institutional or social requisites. It is my choice and just as much as I do not judge other women and support, protect and respect them, I also do this with men because I do not hastily generalise. I certainly do not pretend that I support liberty before forcing my worldview as an expectation onto other people.
I am going to ignore the rest of your nonsense as you are not as interesting as you think.
The very framing of sexuality as a matter of 'provocation' is already pathetic - as if sex is a field of antagonism and danger (letcherous women 'provoking' poor, poor bestial men), and not one of mutual admiration, play, and confident interaction. As if your so-called analysis reflected anything other than your own total insecurity about the opposite sex. But then, your problem isn't wholly your own and speaks to millennia of toxic sexual understanding. Too bad you seek to perpetuate it.
Why are we wasting our time here when we can meet for a coffee? I'll wear my sexually provocative dress with the sole intent of eliciting your arousal and you can ogle and lust like the pig-man that you are.
Noble DustNovember 25, 2017 at 07:47#1269790 likes
The very framing of sexuality as a matter of 'provocation' is already pathetic - as if sex is a field of antagonism and fear (letcherous women 'provoking' poor, poor bestial men), and not one of mutual admiration, play, and confident interaction. As if your so-called analysis reflected anything other than your own total fear and insecurity about the opposite sex qua sexual beings.
The issue with arguments from the likes of yourself and folks like Reply to TimeLine and Reply to Baden is not the actual content of the argument; it's the emotional and moralistic attitude. Words like "pathetic", "total fear", and "insecurity" re-enforce the toxic shame that fosters and builds sexual perversion. If you actually cared to improve the state of sexual mores in culture, you would consciously breed an attitude of non-shame when speaking about the issue. Just look at this childish mess of conversation here in the shoutbox: there's no possibility of reparations; the language from both sides is shameful; that is, it confirms toxic shame which is projected from one side of the argument to the other. How do you, Reply to StreetlightX , how do you, Reply to TimeLine, how do you, Reply to Baden, propose to change the minds of the likes of Reply to Thorongil , of the likes of Reply to Agustino, if your only recourse to argument is to shame the person you consider the enemy? Do you really honestly think that tactic will have any possible positive result at all? No, you don't think that. You, like all of us, shame your moral opponent for your own sake. Not for the sake of your argument.
The issue with arguments from the likes of yourself and folks like ?TimeLine and ?Baden is not the actual content of the argument; it's the emotional and moralistic attitude.
Are you not contradicting yourself by using a moralistic attitude to purport that we must attempt to argue the way in which you feel is right? To add insult to injury, you say that we are to blame for fostering sexual perversion because we breed an attitude of shame; what? It is actually in the reverse. You have just decisively undermined the overarching point that they are the ones who are shaming women and are hastily generalising while coverting such sexist views through moral overtones. We are not at fault if we expose the hollowness of their moral position. It is also not the first time you have used 'children' or 'childishness' and I am curious as to why exactly we become responsible to try and change their minds?
I now await your something like 'I tried' response to commit the very thing you are asking us to avoid.
Noble DustNovember 25, 2017 at 08:32#1269830 likes
Are you not contradicting yourself by using a moralistic attitude to purport that we must attempt to argue the way in which you feel is right?
I'm saying "shaming someone into seeing your moral viewpoint will always fail", and is therefore pointless. You and SLX, and to a lesser extent, Baden, have done that. I may have done that too by using language like "if you actually cared", "childish mess", and "No, you don't think that."
You have just decisively undermined the overarching point that they are the ones who are shaming women and are hastily generalising while coverting such sexist views through moral overtones.
We are not at fault if we expose the hollowness of their moral position.
Exposing a hollow moral position doesn't absolve one from fault. It's possible, for instance, that both parties are at fault. That's exactly what I'm pointing out.
It is also not the first time you have used 'children' or 'childishness' and I am curious as to why exactly we become responsible to try and change their minds?
Where else, specifically, are you thinking of where I used that term? I remember talking to Wayfarer and mentioning a difference between childishness and childlikeness; childishness meaning insecurity and selfishness (the child crying because she can't have more chocolate), vs. childlikeness (eternal trust, wide-eyed possibility in the world, etc).
When I said this debate has been childish, I was referring to the constant stream of insults from both sides.
Finally, you haven't actually responded to my comments about toxic shame. That's the whole crux of my argument.
I now await your something like 'I tried' response to commit the very thing you are asking us to avoid.
Please don't resort to these childish ad homs with me; you won't see me returning in kind, because I believe in you, me, and everyone else posting here; I believe we can debate freely without belittling one another.
I haven't really been involved in the debate and I'm not going to debate the debate. Suffice to repeat, sexism is against the rules and the rules will be enforced.
Noble DustNovember 25, 2017 at 08:48#1269850 likes
True that you haven't been as involved, as I already said. But you added your own opinion ("disgusting") into the debate with a ban warning for...who exactly? That's the only reason I included you in my comments. Maybe it wasn't quite warranted.
I understand where you're coming from, but as an admin I felt it necessary to give the warning. And I addressed the person I mostly had in mind directly after.
Noble DustNovember 25, 2017 at 08:51#1269880 likes
Reply to Noble Dust This whole thing doesn't merit a response but I am still intrigued why you think we are suddenly responsible? Why are you communicating this to us three alone and I take it that since you have clarified that toxicity is mutual, are you suggesting that you agree with us but not with our approach, that therefore they are wrong but we need to behave in a more sophisticated manner?
Prejudice is rather disgusting, don't you think?
StreetlightNovember 25, 2017 at 09:02#1269920 likes
Reply to Noble Dust Call me cynical, but I don't expect to change the mind of someone like Thoron. What I do expect is to frame the issue right, and Thoron's post was exemplary for its clarity with respect to how to frame the issue entirely wrong: as if sexuality is a Hobbesian field of all-against-all, with sluttish women and predatory men stalking the brutish sexual savannah for their next licentious meal.
Why are we wasting our time here when we can meet for a coffee? I'll wear my sexually provocative dress with the sole intent of eliciting your arousal and you can ogle and lust like the pig-man that you are.
I legit lol'd at this.
Noble DustNovember 25, 2017 at 09:06#1269950 likes
What I do expect is to frame the issue right, and Thoron's post was exemplary for its clarity with respect to how to frame the issue entirely wrong: as if sexuality is a Hobbesian field of all-against-all, with sluttish women and predatory men stalking the brutish sexual savannah.
Now, this is just more of what I mentioned above; shaming your moral opponent for your own sake. It's a waste of breath. It's fundamentalist; it's not an actual argument. It's an appeal to shame. And mind you, I'm not even addressing the content of your argument yet.
Noble DustNovember 25, 2017 at 09:07#1269970 likes
They ought to be shamed. It is their view of women which is the issue here.
In the case, the issue wasn't sexual mores per se (e.g. men ogling women) but instead their understanding of women and how it defines women in the context of sexuality. They were blaming women for the actions of men, as if a woman acting "proactively" was at fault for their actions taken against her.
Insecurity is a driver. Their own desire and it's relationship to women becomes a demon because they cannot separate being attracted from acting on desire or thinking they are owed sex. Attraction and desire becomes the enemy because they cannot separate it from reducing women to objects.
Since they do not view women as people in this context, they are incapable of understanding their attraction as something there, but denied, out of respect of a women present (no matter how "provocative" she might be). To be "attracted" becomes something to avoid because it must (supposedly) end in the abuse of women, since it cannot be separated form getting what you desire. Women get the blame for being an attractive presence. They put these men in a situation where they cannot avoid feeling the attraction, (supposedly) trapping them in a context where their objectification of women would cause them to be abusive.
They must hide from attraction because they do not have the empathy or respect to be rejected or acknowledge others are not just there for their sexual interests.
Noble DustNovember 25, 2017 at 09:37#1270020 likes
They ought to be shamed though, for it is their view of women which is the issue here.
No; no one should ever be consciously shamed. Shame breeds secretivity, which breeds secret desires, which breeds sexual abuse. This is the entire crux of my argument. Apparently no one gets it.
the issue wasn't sexual mores per se (e.g. men ogling women) but instead their understanding of women and how it defines women in the context of sexuality.
"Their" meaning men? So men's understanding of women and how it defines women in the context of sexuality is important?
Since they do not view women as people in this context, they are incapable of understanding their attraction as something there, but denied, out of respect of a women present (no matter how "provocative" she might be).
As always (and I vowed to go through your response and respond as logically as possible), this just is too vague. I have no idea what you mean.
o be "attracted" becomes something to avoid because it must (supposedly) end in the abuse of women, since it cannot be separated form getting what you desire.
Women get the blame for being an attractive presence. They put these men in a situation where they cannot avoid feeling the attraction, trapping them in a context where objectification of women would cause them to be abusive.
There are other reasons for women wearing "revealing" clothes than exciting men's sexual urges, such as, for example, the weather, fashion, or maybe the women just felt like it
Blurring the line on the responsibility for sexual assault and / or rape is disgusting. Some of you have already breached the guidelines set regarding sexism in my view. Consider that a warning.
Oh yeah, sure some of you :-}
WHO?
Sun Tzu wrote in his Art of War that if the orders are clear and the underlings don't follow, then they are to be put to death. But if the orders aren't clear, and the underlings don't follow, then it is the general's fault.
This is incredibly dangerous because you retain a right to say "oh you were warned", although you never really warned anyone. Who is "some of you"? Is it me? Am I warned for example?
Sure it won't change your accountability if you like rape them or something of that nature. But if you commit no crime, while they dressed that way for the purpose of sexually provoking you, then they have done something immoral.
Aren't there women who use their bodies as a weapon to control or dominate men? I suggest you open your eyes and look around, since there are many women who try to do just that.
Blurring the line on the responsibility for sexual assault and / or rape is disgusting.
So I haven't blurred the line at all, and yet you're not clarifying that I'm not warned. I fully acknowledged that the man is accountable in case of rape or similar regardless of how the woman dresses. That doesn't make the way the woman dresses morally irrelevant though.
Nor have I suggested for that matter that the only reason why women dress a certain way is to sexually control men.
So what's the issue? Who is warned. Please clarify yourself in clear language.Quoting Baden
From the guidelines:
"Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them."
Oh right, this is very helpful now. This enlightens the underlying issues for sure... I now certainly know who is at fault and who isn't :s ...
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 25, 2017 at 09:58#1270040 likes
Noble Dust:No; no one should ever be consciously shamed. Shame breeds secretivity, which breeds secret desires, which breeds sexual abuse. This is the entire crux of my argument. Apparently no one gets it.
My point is you have misunderstood the shame. The issue with the arguments of several people in this thread isn't feeling attraction. It's their understanding of women.
They are the ones unable to separate attraction for getting what they desire, not the people shaming them. Our shaming of them is opposing this idea. We are pointing out attraction isn't any sort of monster because it is not (nor the presence of any attractive women) responsible for abuse. We are shaming them for equating attraction with getting women they desire.
No man should fear feeling attracted because it is never equivalent to the abuse of woman. Attraction simply doesn't mean a man gets to act or is owed anything. To be attracted *is a separate* to the objectification which results in abuse.
Any man can be in the presence of attractive women, naked and writhing, in all directions and not be abusive. All that it requires is he understand the women are people, not just there for him to get what he desires, no matter how "provocative" the women might be.
Noble Dust:Right, so who's to blame?
Men. They fail to recognise their abusive actions aren't defined by the presence of an attractive woman, making the excuse that somehow it was just the presence of a women they found attractive. They are lying to themselves. They are ignoring attraction does not define objectification (and so abusive actions) and then blaming the presence of attractive women for any abuse they commit or might commit.
They are the ones unable to separate attraction for getting what they desire, not the people shaming them here.
Again, is "they" referring to men?
If so, I assume the above sentence is within context of my argument about shame. So I assume you mean "men are the ones unable to separate attraction for getting what they desire, not the people shaming them here". If so, I never suggested that "the people shaming [men] here are the ones unable to separate attraction from getting what they desire."
What I was suggesting, instead, is that any language at all that suggests shame will inevitably engender shame; whether that language is directed towards victim, perpetrator, or whoever. Please try responding specifically to that argument, rather than your typical "the idea of perpetrator is actually predicated on..."
The very framing of sexuality as a matter of 'provocation' is already pathetic - as if sex is a field of antagonism and fear (letcherous women 'provoking' poor, poor bestial men), and not one of mutual admiration, play, and confident interaction.
Why are we wasting our time here when we can meet for a coffee? I'll wear my sexually provocative dress with the sole intent of eliciting your arousal and you can ogle and lust like the pig-man that you are.
>:O
Noble DustNovember 25, 2017 at 10:20#1270100 likes
So how do we teach the world that sex is a matter of mutual admirationn, play, and confident interaction? How do you teach that to the porn-addicted white 20-something males that make up the majority of the porn viewership online, for instance? What's your master plan? If you're so angry as to dole out so many ad homs, then you must be angry enough to have a plan for real change.
So how do we teach the world that sex is a matter of mutual admirationn, play, and confident interaction? How do you teach that to the porn-addicted white 20-something males that make up the majority of the porn viewership online, for instance? What's your master plan?
The Sun. Send everyone a copy of The Sun.
Noble DustNovember 25, 2017 at 10:25#1270120 likes
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 25, 2017 at 10:26#1270130 likes
[quote="Noble Dust]Which either have nothing to do with shame, or you just haven't explained how they're related to the context of shame.[/quote]
It means we are shaming them for thinking attraction to women is equivalent to getting what you desire, rather than men being attracted to women.
We are saying: "It's immoral to think women are objects who yours if you feel attracted to them. Attraction is not equivalent to getting what you want. Stop it and start recognising women are people."
I don't know. Do you really expect me to answer that? There's no miracle cure. Just education. I had a half-decent parent. Maybe I picked it up from her. Maybe it came naturally. Maybe I picked it up from society, or at least those within society who know right from wrong.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 25, 2017 at 10:29#1270150 likes
By exactly the sort of arguments made in this thread (amongst other things): pointing out the objectification is unacceptable (and that it's not attraction).
We take seriously the idea of understanding woman as people and recognise men feeling attraction isn't a problem.
Noble DustNovember 25, 2017 at 10:29#1270160 likes
The very framing of sexuality as a matter of 'provocation' is already pathetic - as if sex is a field of antagonism and fear (letcherous women 'provoking' poor, poor bestial men), and not one of mutual admiration, play, and confident interaction.
— StreetlightX
If you're a moderator of the forum, and if you're going to participate in a debate about sexuality, then yes (in order of importance).
I thought that you were talking in general, not specifically about the forum. I am a moderator of this forum, not society. I don't have a master plan for society, and when it comes to this forum, I use my judgement to decide what should or should not be moderated, and I liaise with my colleagues.
Noble DustNovember 25, 2017 at 10:35#1270180 likes
It means we are shaming them for thinking attraction to women is equivalent to getting what you desire, rather than men being attracted to women.
Again, you and no one else is actually addressing my argument about shame. Let me try again:
Shame is never appropriate. Rather, shame is always the result of emotional manipulation. This applies to both perpetrators, and victims, which is the reality that none of you are willing to accept.
All I'm trying to do is establish that reality, but no one so far is willing to even address the concept in the first place.
We are saying: "It's immoral to think women are objects who yours if you feel attracted to them. Attraction is not equivalent to getting what you want. Stop it and start recognising women are people."
Typos not withstanding, I'm pretty sure I agree with you.
Noble DustNovember 25, 2017 at 10:39#1270190 likes
I thought that you were talking in general, not specifically about the forum.
Why would you think that? The train of thought was: SLX said we should teach the world to be sexually enlightened, you agreed, then I asked how we do that, then you made a sarcastic comment, then I said "I'm not being sarcastic", then you called me a spoil sport, then you asked me if I really expected you to ask that hard question, then I said "if you're a mod and if you're going to debate sex, then yes".
That's wrong. Shame is a critical aspect of ethical teaching. We use it all the time to project immoral significance of and communicate how a person has done something wrong.
In fact, we could say it's understanding of the immoral person itself-- "That's immoral. You are a failure for doing it" is shame and the very definition of identifying immoral action.
Noble DustNovember 25, 2017 at 10:53#1270220 likes
That's no argument for the moral veracity of shame.
I'll make a brief argument for the moral impotency of shame:
A young, innocent boy is exposed to porn at age 13 via a magazine left in the woods out back. The natural sexual drive of his body is ignited without his consent, and without any knowledge whatsoever about sex, or about what he's experiencing.
Two years later, he's taught at church about the shameful indecency of lust. Now, those sexual feelings that were unexpectedly ignited in him are now associated with the shame of something that is utterly taboo within the church: sexual desire in general. He's now taught that that desire he feels is sinful.
Now, as a result of his upbringing, all sexual desire is considered wrong.
_______
Now, who is responsible for this person's sexual mores? Is that person 100% responsible for their own sexual mores? Is society 50% responsible? 25%? 75%?
But then, your problem isn't wholly your own and speaks to millennia of toxic sexual understanding.
So for millenia humans were just stupid, and now, thanks to your favorite postmodernist authors, we are all enlightened right? :s I wonder how we could ever have thought that sexuality was conflictual and there had to be rules regulating it... judging by the moral codes around, it seems that this was almost universal. Maybe 99% of human beings who ever lived were stupid, who knows :s
I can already see SLX, with saliva drooling by the side of his mouth, "Dis book, you have to read dis book! It is the absolute truth finally revealed! It's not even worth debating others now!" :B
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 25, 2017 at 11:01#1270250 likes
That would be a strawman; we are shaming objectification, not sexual desire or sexual attraction.
Our point is there is no need for attraction or desire to be thought of sinful because it's not equivalent to objectification (and abuse). People shouldn't be shamed for attraction. They should be shamed for objectification and abuse.
Noble DustNovember 25, 2017 at 11:04#1270260 likes
They should be shamed for objectification and abuse.
Again, no, this comes back to the very argument I'm making. Shaming someone for objectification and abuse will only perpetuate and intensify that objectification and abuse.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 25, 2017 at 11:07#1270280 likes
Yeah, that wrong; as said earlier, it's the basic understanding someone has taken and immoral action, the awareness is something ought not be done. If there is no shaming, there will be no understanding an action is immoral.
In many cases, shaming does not intensify that objectification and abuse, but bring someone to an understanding that's wrong and not to do it again.
unenlightenedNovember 25, 2017 at 14:46#1270340 likes
Shame is never appropriate. Rather, shame is always the result of emotional manipulation. This applies to both perpetrators, and victims, which is the reality that none of you are willing to accept.
All I'm trying to do is establish that reality, but no one so far is willing to even address the concept in the first place.
I am deeply ashamed of my inappropriate emotional manipulation, but shame on you for shaming me. You at least should know better. ;)
I think that your reality cannot be established, at least in the terms in which you put it. I would like to persuade you that eating people is wrong, and to do that is functionally identical with making you ashamed of all the times you have eaten people. I can see no way round it except to smile nervously and let you carry on with your diet.
What would be inappropriate, and probably counter-productive, would be to call you a disgusting degenerate uncivilised cannibal savage misanthrope who is not worth talking to. Not that I can never think that of someone, but then the ignore/ban button is appropriate, not the tirade of insults. There is this thing - to appeal to your better nature, but your better nature is inevitably ashamed of your worse nature, isn't it?
Because of what you said, of course. Anyway, I'm not interested in your red herring about my role as a moderator on this forum, and I'm not interested in elaborating or discussing this any further with you.
Dressing like a slut can be and often is a contributing factor in cases of sexual violence.
Which, I guess, explains why old grandmas are more at risk of sexual violence than strippers.
Look, I know you held out because Baden told us to lay down the women vs men crap, but it isn't an excuse to bring out your shiniest bullshit once the curfew is out.
AkanthinosNovember 25, 2017 at 18:36#1270590 likes
Shame is never appropriate. Rather, shame is always the result of emotional manipulation.
I guess that goes along the lines of "shame is not a true emotion"...?
Never liked that idea. The first time I experienced shame in my life and remembered it was when I was watching a horror movie, at the tender age of 6. Voodoo doll curses whoever kissed the person who stole it to die horribly. At some point there is a sex scene where someone cheat on somebody else.
I genuinely felt more horror at the cheating than anything else in that movie. I'm not sure what came first, the feeling of horror or the understanding of what was cheating. Because I'm sure before then I didn't even know what cheating was.
Look, I know you held out because Baden told us to lay down the women vs men crap, but it isn't an excuse to bring out your shiniest bullshit once the curfew is out.
So full of yourself. Go take a walk and get off my neck.
Let's assume that's true then there are 2 options to avoid sexual violence:
1. Women are forced to cover themselves;
2. Men pick up a dictionary and look up the word "no".
Even so, I don't agree with the assumption it's a contributing factor as that implies those women are partly to blame, which they aren't.
*rings up Merriam-Webster*
Definition of contributing factor: something that helps cause a result; according to the police report of the accident, excessive speed was a contributing factor.
Helps cause. No where in that definition, nor any post I've made here, suggests that a contributing factor lays blame at anyone's feet. As I said before, if a woman wears booty shorts and has her tits hanging out in the public space, nobody ought to be surprised when most men will stare not at her eyes, but at her rack and trunk. I think what Thorongil and Agustino have attempted to argue is that they don't like being put into a position where they have to look at someone like that. The same principle is reflected in male juicers and other sorts of douchebags as well. If I want to see tits, ass, cock, what have you, I'll go to the inner city and hire a prostitute or go to a strip club. I don't dress like I'm ready for a shagging, so I don't think anyone else should either.
Also, I don't think some of you here even know what a slut is. I am a college student. I see them walking all around my campus. They know exactly what they're doing. And what they're not doing is "protesting for women's rights." That sort of crap is what ironically keeps the perverts very well supplied with slutty women who are more than willing to be ogled over.
Dressing in a sexually provocative way is the lowest form of female empowerment that Western modernity has attempted to peddle to young women, just as some traditionally masculine gender norms have been unfair to many men, such as men being shamed for being emotional, sensitive, quiet, or interested in poetry, dance, theater, etc.
Bottom line is that if people think it's okay for women to be nude in public, then it must also be okay for men to be nude in public. For those here who have children, if you think it's prudent for them to see nude people when you're in the grocery store or at the park, you're patently insane.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 25, 2017 at 20:44#1270820 likes
Bottom line is that if people think it's okay for women to be nude in public, then it must also be okay for men to be nude in public. For those here who have children, if you think it's prudent for them to see nude people when you're in the grocery store or at the park, you're patently insane.
Break out the straitjacket, dude.
To most people, if there’s an image of sex, it must involve nudity. Therefore, if there’s an image of nudity, it must involve sex. Is that logical?
Helps cause. No where in that definition, nor any post I've made here, suggests that a contributing factor lays blame at anyone's feet.
Conditio sine quo non is an established principal in law as is contributory negligence - both would apply to your examples and as such the implication is those women are partly to blame. Yes, you didn't say that but nevertheless that's the consequence of taking such a position,which is precisely why it's wrong.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 25, 2017 at 21:37#1270950 likes
Reply to Benkei That principle requires sexual violence to be a result of provocative dress in every instance, which I've not argued. On an individual basis, there are thousands of cases, though not all, where provocative dress and sexually suggestive behavior results in the triggering of sexual violence, such that said violence would not have occurred but for the instances of provocative dress and sexually suggestive behavior having been predicates.
You think he's going to do that? Gimme a break. I called him out and he shut right up, that's why he waved his ban hammer because that's all he has.
Yeah, to me it's obvious that @Baden gets easily nervous around controversial matters, and ignores what he already knows about you. Like the fact that you often resort to vulgarity and profanity when discussing sexual issues.
Baden probably associated that vulgarity and profanity with sexism, although it obviously has nothing to do with it.
Dressing like a slut can be and often is a contributing factor in cases of sexual violence. Letting your tits hang out and wearing booty shorts is behavior completely at odds with public decency.
For example that is quite offensive and violent language right there.
I think that dressing provocatively can increase the likelihood of sexual abuse, depending on the part of town you spend your time in. That's like how walking with a ton of dough in your pockets, dressed in flashy and expensive clothing will increase your chances of getting attacked if you walk through the ghetto and da hood.
Of course, in both cases, it's not your fault, morally, for getting attacked. Nor should it be the case that your chances of getting attacked go up if you do those things. But in practice and in actual fact, they do.
I think in both cases you do have a degree of blame from a pragmatic point of view (ie you were stupid), since you could have taken the steps necessary to minimise your chances of getting attacked, by not walking through the wrong part of town dressed in super expensive clothes and with a lot of cash on you or by dressing modestly and not outrageously.
On an individual basis, there are thousands of cases, though not all, where provocative dress and sexually suggestive behavior results in the triggering of sexual violence, such that said violence would not have occurred but for the instances of provocative dress and sexually suggestive behavior having been predicates.
Which is a textbook conditio sine quo non argument and would legally exculpate the assaulter if it would fly. Luckily, the justice system in the USA has largely realised that argument for what it is : a fallacy - in light of the millions of unmolested "sluts" and millions of men who know what "no" means.
I think in both cases you do have a degree of blame from a pragmatic point of view (ie you were stupid),
The point is that in a just world women and men could be as stupid as they wanted and not get raped. And what kind of shaming is that of a victim as well? "Yeah, of course she didn't deserve it but it was really stupid."
So great, only stupid girls get raped?
EDIT: also rape happens everywhere. It isn't even like you can avoid it like a dangerous alley. In a club, in a taxi, at home, public transport, at work etc. Etc.
The point is that in a just world women and men could be as stupid as they wanted and not get raped.
Right, I agree. That's why I said it's not their moral or legal fault. Such a thing, in a just world, shouldn't happen to them, regardless of the fact that they have dressed indecently, etc.
And what kind of shaming is that of a victim as well? "Yeah, of course she didn't deserve it but it was really stupid."
It's not shaming, it's just the truth. If you go dressed in Louis Vuitton and other such brands with cash falling out of your pockets in the hood, and you get attacked, then haven't you been stupid? You may have been a victim, but that doesn't change that you were also stupid. And it's not a shaming, it's just the truth. As your friend, when I visit you in hospital, I will tell you that you were an idiot and for your own good you should never do something like that again once you recover.
No, obviously not, that is, first of all, a strawman. I only said that dressing provocatively in the wrong place may increase the base level chance of getting sexually assaulted.
On an individual basis, there are thousands of cases, though not all, where provocative dress and sexually suggestive behavior results in the triggering of sexual violence, such that said violence would not have occurred but for the instances of provocative dress and sexually suggestive behavior having been predicates.
That is likely to be true, but only from a pragmatic point of view, not from a moral or legal one. So sure, the act may not have happened if they rapist didn't see a woman who attracted him. However, it is not the woman's moral or legal fault that she did happen to attract him, regardless of how she was dressed.
Also, I don't think some of you here even know what a slut is. I am a college student. I see them walking all around my campus.
Right, I've been a college student too, so I know what you're talking about, but then again, it's not very nice to call these people "sluts". The term has violent connotations related to it. Connotations that have to do with sexual abuse, such as "suck it you slut, go on!" , etc. So unless you think about yourself having such a relationship with these women, then what's the point of calling them sluts?
Presumably, you want a nice, decent girl for yourself, so these women are really doing you a favour by being so openly licentious - they tell you who they honestly are, so that you can stay away from them. It's like in a business. You have prospecting, lead generation, and conversions.
First you prospect - which means that you're looking for ways to eliminate everyone whose persona or profile doesn't interest you. Those women already do the job for you. They eliminate themselves - much better than having lying and conniving women, who hide their licentious behaviour. Then from those who remain as prospects, you need to further separate those who are interested in you from those who aren't - that's lead generation. Now once you have them hot leads, you try to convert the right one :D
BuxtebuddhaNovember 25, 2017 at 22:45#1271230 likes
Which is a textbook conditio sine quo non argument and would legally exculpate the assaulter if it would fly. Luckily, the justice system in the USA has largely realised that argument for what it is : a fallacy - in light of the millions of unmolested "sluts" and millions of men who know what "no" means.
I think you're just knocking down a strawman. I am not saying that the abuser can use the woman's promiscuity as a cop out for his own actions. The rapist is wrong 100% of the time. What I am arguing against is the notion that there is never a reason why a rapist rapes and that the raped or abused couldn't have helped themselves. Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't. That's all I'm saying. Dunno what's so outrageous about this opinion.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 25, 2017 at 22:58#1271310 likes
To most people, if there’s an image of sex, it must involve nudity. Therefore, if there’s an image of nudity, it must involve sex. Is that logical?
Nakedness is fine, it just has to be coherent in its public demonstration. The original image posted by somebody with the girls with "sluts" written on their bellies and with stars on their nipples or whatever - I don't think that's proper public behavior. But if you're at a nudist beach, that's fine. If you're walking naked in a planned event supporting breast cancer research, go for it! Streaking nude for no good reason - no, sorry, that's not civilized behavior, in my opinion.
I find Baden's approach in this thread quite horrible. He seems quite trigger-happy with regards to banning, after giving some vague and general warnings, without reading things in context at all. He also seems very happy to slap labels on things such as "sexism" without getting involved in the debate at all and clearly explaining things. If a position is sexist, it should be outlined how.
Very poor practice if you ask me.
There were also no posts deleted, etc. If there was any sexism, it ought to have been deleted along with warnings. As things stand, nobody understands who was warned, and what in particular caused them to be warned.
Excluding now those left-wing fanatics who dominate the forum, we know who they are... I feel there really is some bias going on, where conservative positions are sought to be exterminated and not given a fair hearing.
AkanthinosNovember 25, 2017 at 23:02#1271360 likes
Interesting. I've been on the fence for some time about drug legalization, leaning toward a libertarian stance, but this certainly gives me pause.
Canada is legalizing as of 18 July 2018. Each Provinces are responsible to set up their system of distribution and licensing. So here in La Belle Province, we are going to have a governmental society that sells pot just like we do with alcohol. 150 points of sales max in the entire province. No growth allowed in residential areas. Between 7-8$ per gram. Almost all profits put back into health and prevention.
No worries. I respect you, but I don't respect your argumentative approach here.
If you can articulate how to best respond to the following remarks, despite the fact that most victims of sexual assault know the perpetrator whereby rapists are often acquaintances or family members, then I will agree with you. It is impossible to reason with those who covert their discriminatory and fallacious hasty generalisations that they have the audacity to claim as the "truth" and such people are impossible to change; they simply do not hear or see reason.
It's not shaming, it's just the truth. If you go dressed in Louis Vuitton and other such brands with cash falling out of your pockets in the hood, and you get attacked, then haven't you been stupid? You may have been a victim, but that doesn't change that you were also stupid. And it's not a shaming, it's just the truth. As your friend, when I visit you in hospital, I will tell you that you were an idiot and for your own good you should never do something like that again once you recover.
Also, I don't think some of you here even know what a slut is. I am a college student. I see them walking all around my campus. They know exactly what they're doing. And what they're not doing is "protesting for women's rights." That sort of crap is what ironically keeps the perverts very well supplied with slutty women who are more than willing to be ogled over.
@Agustino Calm down, I was busy with more important things than responding to you - such as sleeping. @Buxtebuddha has specifically been warned of a ban. The reason should be obvious. The rest was a general warning about sexism. Consider yourself included.
(And no, I'm not obligated to give lessons on sexism any more than I am to give lessons on racism. If anyone here is too steeped in prejudice to even know how not be sexist even after all the time we've already spent discussing it, they'll be warned and / or banned and justly so.)
I feel there really is some bias going on,where conservative positions are sought to be exterminated and not given a fair hearing.
Conservatism as a political position has no necessary connection at all with sexism as far as I'm concerned. Certainly, calling women who wear revealing clothes "sluts" and blurring the line on the responsibility for rape and assault has nothing to do with conservatism. I may not be a conservative, but I read conservatives (for example on redstate.com) and respect a lot of what many of them have to say even if I disagree strongly with much of it. (Same for many conservative viewpoints on this site).
(And no, I'm not obligated to give lessons on sexism any more than I am to give lessons on racism. If anyone here is too steeped in prejudice to even know how not be sexist even after all the time we've already spent discussing it, they'll be warned and / or banned and justly so.)
Tick, tock, still waiting for you show me my sexist comments, Baden, Godhead of all Truth.
Dressing like a slut can be and often is a contributing factor in cases of sexual violence. Letting your tits hang out and wearing booty shorts is behavior completely at odds with public decency.
Here's the comment highlighted in the mod forum. The implication is that wearing revealing dress makes a woman an indecent slut and that she bears some responsibility for the sexual violence that follows. I'm sure you will try to come up with some excuse to justify your comment but I have no intention of debating this with you. I'm telling you what the implication is, that comments like this are considered sexist here, and that you will be banned if you continue to make them.
Here's the comment highlighted in the mod forum. The implication is that wearing revealing dress makes a woman an indecent slut and that she bears some responsibility for the sexual violence that follows. I'm sure you will try to come up with some excuse to justify your comment but I have no intention of debating this with you. I'm telling you what the implication is, that comments like this are considered sexist here, and that you will be banned if you continue to make them
My God! That's moose turd pie. It's good though.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 26, 2017 at 02:37#1271840 likes
Reply to Baden No, sorry. Read the context of that remark. You can ban me for believing whatever fantasies you like, you'll still be wrong. You want to read what I've said a certain way. Fine.
But, there's obviously no point in defending myself here. You've said it yourself you're not invested in this discussion nor are you willing to spend your precious time getting informed, so I shouldn't waste my own time with someone who can't be bothered to care. It's obviously easier for you to threaten bans than to actually understand someone's thoughts. Whatever, you've made up crap about posters you don't like and have slandered them before, I shouldn't be surprised really.
By the way when I say I'm not going to debate this, I include the usual suspects, which means you too @Agustino. It's not up for debate. It's a policy statement. If any poster cannot figure out how to not be sexist and comply, either steer clear of these kinds of discussions or leave. We will not have this site or any part of it turning into a toxic waste dump of male stupidity and ignorance towards women.
By the way when I say I'm not going to debate this, I include the usual suspects, which means you too Agustino. It's not up for debate. It's a policy statement. If any poster cannot figure out how to not be sexist and comply, either steer clear of these kinds of discussions or leave. We will not have this site or any part of it turning into a toxic waste dump of male stupidity and ignorance towards women.
The irony is that your attitude is more deeply disrespectful of women than whatever Buxtebuddha and his cohort have to say. It's creepy and it's arrogant.
Good though.
AkanthinosNovember 26, 2017 at 03:08#1271900 likes
The irony is that your attitude is more deeply disrespectful of women than whatever Buxtebuddha and his cohort have to say. It's creepy and it's arrogant.
Baden threatened to ban Buxtebuddha for stating that women need to take responsibility for their own safety, admittedly in a way that has pretty creep undertones.
Baden threatened to ban Buxtebuddha for stating that women need to take responsibility for their own safety, admittedly in a way that has pretty creep undertones.
Thanks for your idiosyncratic support. Would it be disrespectful to minorities and / or creepy and arrogant if I said we won't tolerate racism here?
Saying "We won't tolerate sexism, racism, yada, yada, yada." is fine. Saying "We have to protect the poor little women from even a hint of a contrary view." is creepy and arrogant.
Saying "We won't tolerate sexism, racism, yada, yada, yada." is fine. Saying "We have to protect the poor little women from even a hint of a contrary view." is creepy and arrogant.
:-d You may have missed the long open discussions we have already had about sexism and how the mod team should deal with it. We're now obliged to enforce the guidelines as discussed. You can read whatever else you want into it. That's your issue.
Is it your position that Buxtebuddha deserves to be banned for writing "Dressing like a slut can be and often is a contributing factor in cases of sexual violence?"
It is my position that everyone should follow the guidelines. Baden nor any other moderator thinks that they "have to protect the poor little women from even a hint of a contrary view" so I am not sure where you jibbed that notion from?
If I were to go walking out in the woods where I knew there were tigers and I was mauled by tigers, would you consider me responsible for what happened? If a woman goes out into an unsafe area wearing sexually provocative clothes and she is attacked, would you consider her responsible for what happened?
1) That's not the full quote.
2) It was an example but not the only objectionable thing he said
3) He wasn't banned. He was warned.
4) But, yes sexism is against the rules and sexists will be banned. It's right there in the guidelines.
Yes, if you are going to claim that women are responsible for the sexual violence against them purely because of the clothing they choose to wear, you will be banned. (Your "statement" is in the form of a question though so it depends on your meaning).
Yes, if you are going to claim that women are responsible for the sexual violence against them purely because of the clothing they choose to wear, you will be banned.
Then I stand behind my statement - Your attitude is more deeply disrespectful of women than whatever Buxtebuddha and his cohort have to say.
Actually, I think most people here would agree that it is both sexist and disgusting to blame women for sexual violence against them purely on the basis of their clothing. But regardless, it is the policy that that is unacceptable, yes.
ProbablyTrueNovember 26, 2017 at 03:59#1272210 likes
If I were to go walking out in the woods where I knew there were tigers and I was mauled by tigers, would you consider me responsible for what happened?
No I wouldn't. That would be the bear or tiger's fault, but they aren't able to be prosecuted in a court of law. Are you really equating the prey drive of bears and tigers to the sexual desires of modern men? This sounds like an argument a sexual predator might try to use in court. I would hold men to a higher standard than that.
The point is this: no matter how flamboyant or provocative any woman behaves in public, she is never responsible for being sexually assaulted. That doesn't mean there can't still be public decency laws.
Actually, I think most people here would agree that it is both sexist and disgusting to blame women for sexual violence against them purely on the basis of their clothing. But regardless, it is the policy that that is unacceptable, yes.
Two points. First - it is neither sexist nor disgusting to say that people, grownups, are responsible for keeping themselves safe. Second - The question isn't whether or not I agree with what was said, only whether or not it rises to the level of something that should be banned.
AkanthinosNovember 26, 2017 at 04:00#1272230 likes
Your attitude is more deeply disrespectful of women than whatever Buxtebuddha and his cohort have to say.
I don't get this. White-Knighting might be a bit retrograde, might express a certain attitude toward women that is undesirable, but who would accept that it is more demeaning to women than slut-shaming?
No I wouldn't. That would be the bear or tiger's fault, but they aren't able to be prosecuted in a court of law. Are you really equating the prey drive of bears and tigers to the sexual desires of modern men? This sounds like an argument a sexual predator might try to use in court. I would hold men to a higher standard than that.
It was an informal fallacy that had no equal or comparable value that any judge would find laughable.
Talk to some rape victims who happened to be wearing shorts when they were attacked. I think I've been patient enough and explained things to you. If you don't like it, that's fine by me.
Actually, I think most people here would agree that it is both sexist and disgusting to blame women for sexual violence against them purely on the basis of their clothing
You are strawmanning Buxte, as he never said what you attribute to him here, and T Clark is exactly right to call you out for your white knight pretensions.
Talk to some rape victims who happened to be wearing shorts when they were attacked. I think I've been patient enough and explained things to you. If you don't like it, that's fine by me.
Gonna ban me?
Deleted UserNovember 26, 2017 at 04:07#1272300 likes
For what reason would a woman dress immodestly (or perhaps not at all)? How would this help convey a point or establish a meaningful revolution? How is this going to end sexism? I don't see how it would solve anything. A woman who shares her body with each and every other person nearby does not seem to be a self-respecting woman.
The only reason I am aware of a woman dressing immodestly (and may I add that I am a woman myself) is to gain attention; good and bad. Can she control who looks at her? No, but she can generally control what everyone else sees. So, if a woman knows that dressing a certain way will cause a certain response from others, why would she dress that way and not expect that reaction? Seems no different than licking a metal pole in the dead of winter; it's gonna stick. The pole isn't sexist or racist, it just does what the laws of nature command it to do. So, in order for anyone to say that a woman dressing a certain way would not generally prompt a particular response is to say that she is ignorant; which would imply that women are morbidly stupid. And that is indeed a sexist statement. Instead, one ought to be inclined that women are not morons, and actually have a degree of intelligence as do their male counterparts.
Does this make a woman fully responsible for being raped? By no means! But it is a logical conclusion that dressing immodestly will increase her probability as being seen as a toy instead of a living, breathing, thinking human capable of making rational decisions. As no grown, educated person would lick a metal pole outside in the freezing cold, a woman should not suppose that dressing immodestly will not bring sexist and possibly dangerous reactions.
StreetlightNovember 26, 2017 at 04:08#1272320 likes
While we're at it, lets set to the flames the entirely stupid idea that so-called 'provocatively dressed woman' ('provocative' only to a bunch of sexually inept assholes) are at all more likely to be the targets of rape, or even sexual harassment: the majority of rapes take place as crimes of opportunity - when someone is alone, or in a position of less power, or unable to give or take back consent - hence why the majority of rapes happen in already-established relationships, and are not between strangers. Theresa Beiner's own study suggests that 'provocatively dressed' women are less likely to be targets of rape precisely because such displays of sexual confidence paint such women as less likely to be dominated by any attackers:
"Sexual harassment is about power; therefore, a target who is dressed provocatively is not the ideal target for the would-be harasser, who appears motivated at least in part by his ability to dominate his victim. Provocative dress does not necessarily signify submissiveness but instead may be an indication of confidence and assertiveness."
The focus on dress completely obscures the dimension of power and opportunity which, far more than any idiotic and sexist appeal to appearance, affords instances of rape. Fuck your appeals to modesty, you sexually-repressed fucks.
ProbablyTrueNovember 26, 2017 at 04:09#1272330 likes
It was an informal fallacy that had no equal or comparable value that any judge would find laughable.
I agree. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that this type of defense has been attempted in court before. I think the underlying argument is insulting to men, frankly.
ProbablyTrueNovember 26, 2017 at 04:12#1272350 likes
The focus on dress completely misses the dimension of power and opportunity which, far more than any idiotic and sexist appeal to appearance, affords instances of rape.
Even if this wasn't the case, focusing on how women dress rather than how the men react/behave would be ideologically backwards thinking.
Does this make a woman fully responsible for being raped? By no means! But it is a logical conclusion that dressing immodestly will increase her probability as being seen as a toy instead of a living, breathing, thinking human capable of making rational decisions. As no grown, educated person would lick a metal pole outside in the freezing cold, a woman should not suppose that dressing immodestly will not bring sexist and possibly dangerous reactions.
Hey, Baden. I think you should ban Lone Wolf too.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 26, 2017 at 04:13#1272370 likes
I think you're just knocking down a strawman. I am not saying that the abuser can use the woman's promiscuity as a cop out for his own actions. The rapist is wrong 100% of the time. What I am arguing against is the notion that there is never a reason why a rapist rapes and that the raped or abused couldn't have helped themselves. Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't. That's all I'm saying. Dunno what's so outrageous about this opinion.
It's as if nobody reads! Appalling how pernicious some of you are in discrediting valid, though differing, opinions. It's intellectually disingenuous.
AkanthinosNovember 26, 2017 at 04:13#1272380 likes
While we're at it, lets set to the flames the entirely stupid idea that so-called 'provocatively dressed woman' ('provocative' only to a bunch of sexually inept assholes) are at all more likely to be the targets of rape, or even sexual harassment: the majority of rapes take place as crimes of opportunity - when someone is alone, or in a position of less power, or unable to give or take back consent - hence why the majority of rapes happen in already-established relationships, and are not between strangers. Theresa Beiner's own study suggests that 'provocatively dressed' women are less likely to be targets of rape precisely because such displays of sexual confidence paint such women as less likely to be dominated by any attackers:
I tried 3 pages ago. It does not sink.
Children and golden-age crones are the most likely age categories to be abused sexually. Not because those toddlers are rocking the newest mini-skirts, nor because those grandmothers are all caught out in their thongs. But because they are the most easy to prey upon.
Does this make a woman fully responsible for being raped? By no means! But it is a logical conclusion that dressing immodestly will increase her probability as being seen as a toy instead of a living, breathing, thinking human capable of making rational decisions. As no grown, educated person would lick a metal pole outside in the freezing cold, a woman should not suppose that dressing immodestly will not bring sexist and possibly dangerous reactions.
What is dressing immodestly mean to you?
StreetlightNovember 26, 2017 at 04:15#1272440 likes
Reply to ProbablyTrue Yep. I loathe to have to mention it, but it's such a pernicious, vile myth - promulgated by multiple shitheads in this thread alone - that it deserves address.
ProbablyTrueNovember 26, 2017 at 04:18#1272450 likes
Seems no different than licking a metal pole in the dead of winter; it's gonna stick. The pole isn't sexist or racist, it just does what the laws of nature command it to do. So, in order for anyone to say that a woman dressing a certain way would not generally prompt a particular response is to say that she is ignorant; which would imply that women are morbidly stupid.
So it's insulting to women because it removes responsibility for their actions, but men are equated to a frozen metal pole? OK.
Does this make a woman fully responsible for being raped? By no means! But it is a logical conclusion that dressing immodestly will increase her probability as being seen as a toy instead of a living, breathing, thinking human capable of making rational decisions. As no grown, educated person would lick a metal pole outside in the freezing cold, a woman should not suppose that dressing immodestly will not bring sexist and possibly dangerous reactions.
Which actually illustrates the point that the "slut walks" are trying to make. They are trying to make clear that how one dresses never amounts to an invitation for unwanted sexual advances.
Yep. I loathe to have to mention it, but it's such a pernicious, vile myth - promulgated by multiple shitheads in this thread alone - that it deserves address.
Hey, Baden. I think StreetlightX is calling me a shithead. Is he allowed to do that?
Hey, wait. Isn't that an ad hominem attack? Are those allowed?
Reply to Akanthinos Precisely. Up to 50% of sexual assaults occur against girls below the age of 16, women and girls are 80 percent of the estimated 800,000 people trafficked with most for sexual exploitation and 150 million girls under the age of 18 suffered some form of sexual violence in 2002 alone. All because they wore a short skirt?
StreetlightNovember 26, 2017 at 04:20#1272500 likes
Children and golden-age crones are the most likely age categories to be abused sexually. Not because those toddlers are rocking the newest mini-skirts, nor because those grandmothers are all caught out in their thongs. But because they are the most easy to prey upon.
Yeah, but reference to children and old people don't fit the moralizing frame of our sexual high-priests who live in morbid fear of women's sexuality.
One side makes thoughtful posts, the other strawmans and hurls epithets like "asshole" and "shithead."
I understand the very small point you were trying to make, however I think your solution sidesteps the problem. Women should be held to public decency laws just like men, but they should be held to those laws by law enforcement and not some small possibility of being sexually assaulted by some neanderthal. In the meantime, we can try to teach young men that they are solely responsible for their actions rather than tell young women to dress modestly lest they invite attack.
Reply to TheWillowOfDarknessReply to Noble DustReply to Agustino I think Noble Dust is right. Shaming is not a good strategy. Shaming is going to be especially ineffective when it comes from an irrelevant source--someone whose opinion is not important to the subject of the shaming, or is rejected by the subject.
If shaming works at all, it works for parents on very young children when the basic kernels of morality are being taught--and only then when used judiciously. When parents get carried away with shaming, their children get screwed up. As children get older shaming becomes less productive, then finally counterproductive. Shaming adults? No. Forget it.
What does work? Nothing, very specifically, very effectively. Adult behavior and attitudes are difficult to change. Education, example, modeling, peer group pressure--all these methods are "weak forces", but over time they work as well as anything can.
If you want to teach young men to respect young women as persons -- which of course is an eminently worthwhile goal, stick to positive methods. Young women need guidance too about how to interact with young men. And the same methods should be used: education, examples, modeling, peer group pressure.
Threats are another popular method. ("if you don't stop uttering those opinions, you will be banned") Don't count on getting the desired results by threatening men (and women) with dire consequences if they don't follow your advice.
As reluctant as several of you might possibly be to reappraise your basic assumptions about behavior between men and women (Baden, TimeLine, Willow of Darkness, Streetlight, et al) I think this would be useful for you. I'm not suggesting that you should conclude that men's behavior toward women is just fine; rather I think you need to grant women more credit for being able to deal with men.
Now, maybe typical current college women really are incapable of dealing with anything problematic. Hence their need for safe zone shelters, trigger warnings, protection for abrasive opinions they don't agree with, etc. The need to be given encouragement to live in the real world. But most women, my opinion at least, are capable of taking care of themselves.
Women need to learn the boor control skills of sophisticated women. And yes, sophisticated men can learn boor behavior avoidance.
Reply to TimeLine No. I'm going to bed. I'll let Lone Wolf speak for herself.
I also wonder if your GIF will be deleted when I check the forum tomorrow, as the one I posted not long ago was the subject of rebuke in this very thread.
Reply to T Clark Settle down. I never considered you a part of our side, for you have consistently referred to us as Buxte's "cohort," thus making it clear what angle you're coming from.
Reply to BuxtebuddhaReply to Thorongil Hey, "vile, mongoloid, and sexist shitheads" why are you leaving the party so early? it's only 10:30? It's too early for you to go to bed.
EDIT: Sorry. "Don't forget pseudo-man and pathologically repressed asshole"
I don't disagree with much of what you said but despite all the white noise around, we're a moderated forum and we have rules on sexism*, racism and so on, which we're obliged to enforce. There's not much more to it than that from my point of view.
(*Discussed ad nauseum on previous discussions. The last complaint was we were too lenient. The new complaint is we are too strict. And so on...).
If you want to teach young men to respect young women as persons -- which of course is an eminently worthwhile goal, stick to positive methods.
What you may say about shaming may be all well and good, but are you suggesting that somehow they are justified in their fallacious, hasty generalisations that shame women on the whole who become victims of sexual assault apparently because of what they wear? Indeed, are you saying here that women need to be given...
Why are we responsible for their behaviour? This is classic Adam and Eve storytelling, of course, when Adam bites the apple and is faced with the consequences, it is Eve's fault.
The only reason I am aware of a woman dressing immodestly (and may I add that I am a woman myself) is to gain attention; good and bad. Can she control who looks at her? No, but she can generally control what everyone else sees.
"Style of presentation" is important. Pretty much everyone adjusts their public presentation to suit their wishes, within their means. Back when I was svelte and still had brown hair I liked to go to the gay beach in the summer and walk around nude -- certainly not to maximize vitamin D uptake. I attracted exactly the kind of attention I desired. (40 years later, forget it. Alas.)
Gay men, other men too, like to signal with more or less clothing, and it isn't just a question of wardrobe options. They want a certain kind of response from their outfit, and from the amount of skin or shape and physique that is displayed. Why would women be any different?
Clothing is way too cultural for it to not have suggestive meanings. A man can't dress in a black suit with a clerical collar and then say, "Oh, I just felt like wearing this" after everyone identified him as a religious.
Vestis Virum/femina Reddit (clothes make the man/woman) is pretty true. Thinking the disposition of one's clothing is irrelevant is just obtuse.
Two points. First - it is neither sexist nor disgusting to say that people, grownups, are responsible for keeping themselves safe. Second - The question isn't whether or not I agree with what was said, only whether or not it rises to the level of something that should be banned.
It's obvious and non-controversial to tell people to lock their doors, and we all recognize it would be a pretty useless defense for the burglar to argue that he shouldn't be found guilty because the homeowner failed to lock his door and was therefore asking for it.
Why that cannot be used an analogy for sexual assault without creating ire is likely due to the fact that blaming the victim in sexual assault is common and has been a real impediment to those seeking to reduce sexual assault. That is to say, no one is going around blaming victims in other contexts to the point where it affects the ability to prosecute the criminal.
There is also some troubling subtext to many of the comments submitted, where posters suggest that the purpose of public decency standards is to control the violence inherent in the male libido. The reason I don't want pornographic billboards, public street sex, naked women walking down the street, and all other imaginable sexual displays has nothing to do with my concern that if I see such images I will forcibly assault the nearest woman, but it's that I simply wish to be spared such things.
StreetlightNovember 26, 2017 at 05:26#1272710 likes
If a woman knows that dressing a certain way will cause a certain response from others, why would she dress that way and not expect that reaction?
Yeah, how could a woman not expect to be raped and/or sexually harrassed when dressed 'immodestly'? How oh how?
This being the presumably 'good', 'well-expressed point' Thorong finds so compelling.
I mean gosh even men ought to be insulted by such condescending drivel - or perhaps some men - and apparently women - here really do identify themselves with the abundant intelligence and agency of a frozen mental pole in the dead of winter.
Why that cannot be used an analogy for sexual assault without creating ire is likely due to the fact that blaming the victim in sexual assault is common and has been a real impediment to those seeking to reduce sexual assault. That is to say, no one is going around blaming victims in other contexts to the point where it affects the ability to prosecute the criminal.
The impediment is the assumption that victims who wear revealing clothing (which I have yet to actually see anyone explain what this may mean - what is "sexually provocative dressing"?) are allegedly consenting as they are attempting to seduce the aggressor by what they wear. There is no evidence whatsoever that revealing clothing bears any relevance to non-consensual acts of sexual penetration or violence and it is therefore purely and unequivocally sexist. The greatest impediment is the socially ingrained misogyny and depending on the culture you are from can have astounding consequences.
Why that cannot be used an analogy for sexual assault without creating ire is likely due to the fact that blaming the victim in sexual assault is common and has been a real impediment to those seeking to reduce sexual assault.
I am ambivalent about the argument that I have been making about women taking responsibility for their own safety. On one hand, I believe it is true. I work in construction. When I'm at a construction site, I spend a lot of my time thinking about safety, trying to identify hazards, and trying to foresee injuries. On the other hand, women should be able to be and feel safe wherever they go. In an ideal world, it should be something they don't even have to think about.
I mostly got involved in this discussion because I don't think it's reasonable to shut down discussion on this issue by labeling relevant opinions as sexist and threatening to ban people who make them.
I liked to go to the gay beach in the summer and walk around nude -- certainly not to maximize vitamin D uptake.
Can you explain what "sexually provocative dressing" is, as I hardly think women who wear a dress to a party is potentially at risk of being raped any more than a person wearing long pants and a skivvy.
If I were to go walking out in the woods where I knew there were tigers and I was mauled by tigers, would you consider me responsible for what happened? If a woman goes out into an unsafe area wearing sexually provocative clothes and she is attacked, would you consider her responsible for what happened?
In both cases, at least to some extent. Be attentive to your surroundings. Men who dress to look well heeled and affluent are more likely to be targeted by pick pockets than someone who looks like a bum carrying a paper bag with his clothes in it. A gay guy in drag is going to get hassled on the street -- he can bank on it. A woman at a convention who is dressed in the style of local hookers (and may have positioned herself likewise) is likely to be approached for sex. On the other hand, women dressed in any style whatsoever are often propositioned on certain streets where hookers hang out.
Obviously, it isn't the case that these things should happen; it is the case that they do happen. It is also the case that women are raped without respect to what they were wearing. They might have had on Service Master coveralls, blue surgical scrubs, tight blue jeans and a sweat shirt, or a revealing gown. Or they might have been nuns in habits. They might have been 16, 47, or 85.
AkanthinosNovember 26, 2017 at 05:38#1272780 likes
The only reason I am aware of a woman dressing immodestly (and may I add that I am a woman myself) is to gain attention; good and bad.
Women can dress in fishnets for however many reasons they can conjure. Perhaps they like dressing in fishnets. Perhaps they are going to a theme party. Perhaps they have the intention to bring back 3 guys back home and bang away the night. Not a single reason invoked could justify the attitude given to women when they do decide to dress sexy.
Whatever that reason may be, it's hers and hers alone. Dressing is not something that you do to the world, it's something you do to yourself. Maybe she wants attention. Or maybe her self-image is that of a beautiful sexual women and sometimes she likes to dress accordingly. You are preaching from a lack of imagination.
It' a moderated forum with guidelines which explicitly mention that sexism is not allowed. And we have to draw the line on that somewhere. But context will always be taken into consideration and warnings will be given except in extreme circumstances. I don't think it's any great sacrifice for people not to be overtly sexist or racist etc.
It' a moderated forum with guidelines which explicitly mention that sexism is not allowed. And we have to draw the line on that somewhere. But context will always be taken into consideration and warnings will be given except in extreme circumstances. I don't think it's any great sacrifice for people not to be overtly sexist or racist etc.
Dressing is not something that you do to the world, it's something you do to yourself.
That's true if you stay in your house. In the privacy of your own house you can dress like the great Whore of Babylon or the Queen Mother. It doesn't matter. BUT...
In public, clothing has public meanings. Sorry -- there just isn't any way around it. When I, as a man, have chosen to dress in proper business clothing, I will get a different response from various people in public than when I wear clothing appropriate to religious workers, or if I decide to dress in black leather chaps and a jock strap--nothing else underneath. Should I complain if a restaurant tells me I can NOT come in dressed in chaps and jock strap? Should I complain if my business attire gets me better service? Should I reject a little respect I get for looking like a religious? No. I asked for it, I got it.
A woman who decides to wear spike heels, fishnet stockings, a short skirt, and a halter top should expect a certain kind of public interpretation of her outfit (like at least "kind of in bad taste, dear"). Maybe if she is 15 she won't have figured this out. That's where parents come in. I'm not saying she deserves bad consequences for wearing such an outfit, but I deny her the freedom to wear it in public without others interpreting what it means.
what is "sexually provocative dressing"?) are allegedly consenting as they are attempting to seduce the aggressor by what they wear.
Communication occurs in all sorts of forms. If my girlfriend who I haven't seen in a couple of weeks answers the door wearing negligee, I think she has communicated her desire through what she's wearing. Obviously, no one can communicate a desire for non-consensual anything because of the inherent logical contradiction of you communicating a desire of that which you don't desire. But, to your question, of course a woman (or anyone) can communicate through clothing. Wearing the dress you wore on your first date when it's your one year anniversary might mean to communicate your sticky sweet romanticism as might your wearing the dress you wore the first time you were intimate when you are now is big fight might mean to communicate something else. I could go on and on about this, but you get the point.
Reply to TimeLine Quite right, women are raped in all sorts of garb. If one is at a party, the risk factors would be how much one had had to drink and who was there. If I were a woman, I wouldn't go to a frat party and get drunk, no matter what I wore. However, it is certainly the case that in public, some clothing will attract more attention from more people than other types of clothing. Clothing that exposes a lot of skin (legs, mid rift, back, shoulders, cleavage...), exposes one's shape (tight clothing that reveals details of shape and sexual features. Once one has attracted attention by ones clothing, then one has to deal with it.
However, context matters. Any swim suit at a swimming pool reveals quite a lot, and that is considered normal and unremarkable. Surgical scrubs won't attract attention in a hospital, they will attract more attention at a formal dance. If your female surgeon came into the operating room for your operation in a ball gown, you'd probably wonder whether you were hallucinating.
People have to judge their surroundings. Clothing in public is simply not a strictly private matter. Of course, clothing neither prevents nor justifies rape.
AkanthinosNovember 26, 2017 at 06:08#1272870 likes
A woman who decides to wear spike heels, fishnet stockings, a short skirt, and a halter top should expect a certain kind of public interpretation of her outfit (like at least "kind of in bad taste, dear"). Maybe if she is 15 she won't have figured this out. That's where parents come in. I'm not saying she deserves bad consequences for wearing such an outfit, but I deny her the freedom to wear it in public without others interpreting what it means.
Anyone is entitled to their judgements. Those judgements might also just be terrible and slanted by a retrograde morality with an unhealthy emphasis on condemning sexuality. If a girl wants to dress for sex, you shouldn't assume she's dressed for sex with you, or that she only dresses for sex.
My own thoughts about banning the sexists is that I do think there is some real value in having women explain to men the effects of sexism and where it might lie, and those comments will only be forthcoming when men say things that are unfortunately sexist. I'd say the same thing about racists. If there were a sizeable number of posters who really believed that the Dutch, for example, were a lower form of human life, it would be worthy to hear from them and then from the Dutch, but only as long as the anti-Dutch crowd was truly open minded to what was being said. Obviously no one wishes to hear from a Klansman who is incorrigible, but if there really were some sheltered soul who never really contemplated such matters and was for the first time being exposed to a new way of thinking, I'd like to keep that person around. I really do believe some on this board are of that sort, not terribly malicious, just kind of limited in exposure.
Reply to Akanthinos Like I said, IN PUBLIC clothing is not strictly a private matter. It's even a legal matter. In many places it's illegal to wear nothing. It's illegal in some places to wear much too little. It's illegal to wear the opposite sexes' clothing in some places, and in some places it's illegal to wear too much clothing, like the burkina in France.
"Sumptuary laws" used to govern whether peasants could wear pieces of fur or bright colored cloth. Generally they couldn't (this was before your time -- like... 13th century). Gradually they did anyway. it greatly annoyed those who had a lot of fur and bright colored cloth to wear.
Well, we don't have a lot of laws governing what people wear, but people are perfectly free to interpret what you have on. And they will, and do.
Communication occurs in all sorts of forms. If my girlfriend who I haven't seen in a couple of weeks answers the door wearing negligee, I think she has communicated her desire through what she's wearing.
Have you ever had an experience where what you are attempting to convey has been misunderstood, perhaps further still have not been able to adequately communicate at all because what you say flies over the head of one intellectually beneath you or perhaps because they are of a different linguistic or cultural background? I am a friendly person and that friendliness has been misinterpreted as being flirtatious and not because I act in any flirtatious manner but it is because they found me attractive.
It is not just about communication, but also about understanding and interpretation and therefore how a person dresses can be interpreted by several men in completely different ways. Her desire could be a multitude of different things including, perhaps most of all, to impress or compete with other women and not for men. A rapist is a rapist, however which way a woman dresses, and if there is any need for change it is the culturally misogynistic notions that women enable consent by the clothes that they wear. Consensual acts and any symbolism between you and your girlfriend are irrelevant to this problem.
I personally understand the cultural aspects to dress; when I was in Tel Aviv, I dressed the same as I do in Australia because wearing shorts and dresses and bikinis is normal, girls everywhere wear it and there is no underlying assumptions, unlike, say, when I was in Jerusalem or Palestine. It does not, however, make it justifiable that any act of sexual violence is causally linked to the way a person dresses. On the other hand, acts of violence against women and in particular sexual violence is linked and can be correlated to paternalistic cultures with ingrained misogynistic values such as acid throwing or honour killings and therefore the problem is the underlying misogyny which itself could potentially be linked to rape.
Noble DustNovember 26, 2017 at 06:43#1272920 likes
If you want to teach young men to respect young women as persons -- which of course is an eminently worthwhile goal, stick to positive methods. Young women need guidance too about how to interact with young men. And the same methods should be used: education, examples, modeling, peer group pressure.
In many cases, shaming does not intensify that objectification and abuse, but bring someone to an understanding that's wrong and not to do it again.
No, shame does not work that way. Shame leads to secrecy; secrecy builds deeper shame, which builds deeper secrecy. Sexuality, specifically, is arguably the most intimate and delecate aspect of the human person, and any form of sexual exploitation with immediate consequences will always breed shame, which will breed secrecy, which will breed...
Reply to Noble Dust There is no nuanced explanation there. What is "positive methods" exactly? Are you saying that when someone here writes a sexist comment, I should quietly post a photo of my degree as a positive method of reinforcing the benefits education has to women?
Noble DustNovember 26, 2017 at 06:48#1272950 likes
There is this thing - to appeal to your better nature, but your better nature is inevitably ashamed of your worse nature, isn't it?
Yes - that's a key component to my argument about shame; so I'm confused, because you seem to disagree with me, but here, you're bringing up an important element of my argument. I'm not too sure what you're getting at.
Noble DustNovember 26, 2017 at 06:53#1272980 likes
Anyway, I'm not interested in your red herring about my role as a moderator on this forum, and I'm not interested in elaborating or discussing this any further with you.
Quite a privilege you have.
Noble DustNovember 26, 2017 at 06:54#1272990 likes
If you can articulate how to best respond to the following remarks, despite the fact that most victims of sexual assault know the perpetrator whereby rapists are often acquaintances or family members, then I will agree with you.
Did you mean "whereas" rather than "whereby"? Even if so, that distinction doesn't make sense because they're essentially the same thing; "victims knowing the perpetrator" vs. "rapists often being acquaintances or family members". So when you ask me to articulate how best to respond to the following remarks you quote, despite *the confusing info you subsequently list*, I just don't know how to respond. Additionally, I don't know how your response here was a response to what you quoted from me.
It is impossible to reason with those who covert their discriminatory and fallacious hasty generalisations that they have the audacity to claim as the "truth" and such people are impossible to change; they simply do not hear or see reason.
Yes, I agree. Those people exist on both "sides" of this debate.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 26, 2017 at 06:59#1273030 likes
The point is understanding an action is immoral is shame. It means one holding someone has a value of failure becasue of the action they have taken. To appeal to a better nature is to shame-- "you are a failure in this action and ought to behave better."
We don't have any appeals to better nature or understanding of a moral failing without shame. Those who act immorally, whether ourselves or someone else, are shameful.
StreetlightNovember 26, 2017 at 07:00#1273040 likes
Reply to Noble Dust Methinks you doth protest too much - it's not as if my interlocutors are red-faced and demure.
Noble DustNovember 26, 2017 at 07:01#1273050 likes
The point is understanding an action is immoral is shame
Do you mean "The point is understanding that an action is immoral is shame"? If so, no the understanding does not equate to shame. That makes no sense.
That's entirely tangential to the point though, as the issue here is not: "How do women handle men who would by them unwanted attention?" but rather that men pay them such attention in the first place.
Teaching women how to handle unwanted attention (whatever that entails) doesn't actually touch the point of concern, which is about how men understand women and how this entails harassment and abuse.
Noble DustNovember 26, 2017 at 07:05#1273100 likes
Teaching women how to handle unwanted attention from men. As discussed here:
"If you want to teach young men to respect young women as persons -- which of course is an eminently worthwhile goal, stick to positive methods. Young women need guidance too about how to interact with young men. And the same methods should be used: education, examples, modeling, peer group pressure."
— Bitter Crank
"Yes."
— Noble Dust
Noble DustNovember 26, 2017 at 07:08#1273140 likes
You, like good old Sappy, are also insufferable. You're contributing to toxic shame when you insult the people you disagree with; no where, unless I'm missing something, in this debate, have you actually brought an argument; you've just shamed those you disagree with by grossly insulting them (abusing your mod powers), and then you're confusingly coy with me, maybe because you think I agree with you. I'm not sure.
StreetlightNovember 26, 2017 at 07:09#1273150 likes
Reply to Bitter Crank I'll make you a deal, I'll only ever throw Bardian insults around from now on - you frothy dizzy-eyed wagtail.
What is "positive methods" exactly? Are you saying that when someone here writes a sexist comment, I should quietly post a photo of my degree as a positive method of reinforcing the benefits education has to women?
You are being obtuse and I don't give a rat's ass about your degree.
Noble DustNovember 26, 2017 at 07:11#1273170 likes
if I understand an action is immoral, I am ashamed for having taken it.
Ok, here we have some common ground; great. The problem is that you insist that it's morally right for me to shame you when I see you acting immorally. On the contrary, only you can understand, as you say, your own immorality, thus feeling your own justly felt shame.
I don't know, because I never said "positive methods".
No, you didn't, BC did in the quote you had displayed before stating that his response has a much more nuanced explanation of what you were attempting to convey. You are intentionally being ungenerous.
Did you mean "whereas" rather than "whereby"? Even if so, that distinction doesn't make sense because they're essentially the same thing; "victims knowing the perpetrator" vs. "rapists often being acquaintances or family members". So when you ask me to articulate how best to respond to the following remarks you quote, despite *the confusing info you subsequently list*, I just don't know how to respond. Additionally, I don't know how your response here was a response to what you quoted from me.
I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but if your intent is to try and win an argument by playing games like this, you don't deserve my time. What a shame.
StreetlightNovember 26, 2017 at 07:12#1273190 likes
Reply to Noble Dust *yawn* if you think Thoron et. al. feel a hint of shame over this discussion, I'll eat my hat.
Noble DustNovember 26, 2017 at 07:15#1273200 likes
No, you didn't, BC did in the quote you had displayed before stating that his response has a much more nuanced explanation of what you were attempting to convey.
True, when I said his response was more nuanced, I meant his entire post. I only quoted some of it for clarity. My understanding of what BC meant by positive methods was: the opposite of shame. Not shaming someone for having done wrong; instead, using "positive reinforcement".
I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but if your intent is to try and win an argument by playing games like this, you don't deserve my time. What a shame.
I honestly was confused by your sentence structure. Again, kindly don't assume to know my motives.
It can only be morally right for you to shame me (in the sense of pointing out I'm wrong and its seriousness); you are describing the moral significance of my actions. If I have acted moral and other people understand it, they will also be ashamed of me.
Then, if I have to be taught that I was immoral, that involves pointing out I should be ashamed and other should be assumed of me for my actions. To point out: "You have acted immorally. The way you understand and act towards people is abusive/wrong/evill..." is to shame me, both for myself (I ought to be ashamed of my actions) and for others (you ought to be ashamed of this person for acting immoral; don't do it yourself).
Without this, we literally can't recognise an immoral action, take issue with it or take action to reduce its prevalence.
StreetlightNovember 26, 2017 at 07:20#1273240 likes
However, context matters. Any swim suit at a swimming pool reveals quite a lot, and that is considered normal and unremarkable. Surgical scrubs won't attract attention in a hospital, they will attract more attention at a formal dance. If your female surgeon came into the operating room for your operation in a ball gown, you'd probably wonder whether you were hallucinating.
Context does matter and the context of this discussion is about victims of sexual violence being culpable due to the clothing that they wear. You can give thousands of absurd scenarios vis-a-vis the way a person can dress (or not dress) to make your point, indeed I have already explained the variations of cultural values and my acknowledgement of and adherence to these values as a traveller, but it bears no significance on the sexually violent acts by a perpetrator. On the contrary, these ingrained culturally misogynistic values can easily be correlated to acts of violence against women, as seen for instance with acid throwing or rape as an act of punishment during war and therefore that is the problem. Whether a woman wears a dress or wears pants is irrelevant to consent and definitions of what is indecent is visible in the laws of each country; women in some Islamic countries where they are completely covered can either be socially ostracised or imprisoned if raped because it is their fault that they, uhm, that they... didn't cover their finger?
My point is understanding someone is immoral is shaming; they are said to be wrong, to have negative value, to need to change their actions., such that it is never a positive experience for them.
To recognise immorality and take it seriously means being negative towards someone-- that they need to be replaced by a different action, way of living, etc. because their present is unacceptable.
StreetlightNovember 26, 2017 at 07:32#1273290 likes
Reply to Noble Dust Oh get over yourself. If you have the wherewithal to hand-hold and sweet-talk a bunch of mysogynist long-tongued hag-seeds, then be my guest.
No I'm not. You don't know my motives. Kindly don't assume to know them.
You are still continuing? The question was about how to respond to such people as per the quotes I had attached without feeling any sense of agitation and remembering that most victims of rape are not those who walk around being sexually provocative but are women and children who actually know the perpetrator such as being acquaintances or family members. Whether it is your motive or not, you are being ungenerous and I have no time for dastardly responses.
This is a serious conversation that means something to people. Kindly remember that before posting your one liners in an attempt to destroy the actual legitimacy of this topic.
Noble DustNovember 26, 2017 at 07:33#1273310 likes
The reason I never have any idea what you're talking about is that your sentence structure, grammar, etc., never make sense. What does the word "barcode" mean in the above post, for instance? And I would never be so critical, except your posts are consistently like this; I feel as if I can almost ascertain what you're getting at, but then the grammatical failures and typos are so great that it just feels like a lost cause.
The reason I never have any idea what you're talking about is that your sentence structure, grammar, etc., never make sense. What does the word "barcode" mean in the above post, for instance? And I would never be so critical, except your posts are consistently like this; I feel as if I can almost ascertain what you're getting at, but then the grammatical failures and typos are so great that it just feels like a lost cause.
You seem to be having trouble understanding everyone.
Noble DustNovember 26, 2017 at 07:34#1273330 likes
That was a typo/autocorrect; it was meant to be "because."
I also call bullshit. There's no way I've made so many errors that I'm somehow utterly unintelligible. I've been making the point for about five posts now, only a couple of which had errors in in a section talking about how immorality equals negative value, amounting to a shaming those who commit immoral actions.
Noble DustNovember 26, 2017 at 07:39#1273350 likes
The question was about how to respond to such people as per the quotes I had attached without feeling any sense of agitation and remembering that most victims of rape are not those who walk around being sexually provocative but are women and children who actually know the perpetrator such as being acquaintances or family members.
I never addressed this; I always and only was making an argument about shame in this discussion.
This is a serious conversation that means something to people.
Again, you assume it means less to me. You can't even imagine what this discussion means to me. You're assumption that I'm being ungenerous and that I don't care about the emotional component of this argument is not only egregiously offensive, it's downright sick, twisted, and shaming. That's all I've got, I was gonna respond to the rest of you posts, but I'm out of juice.
StreetlightNovember 26, 2017 at 07:39#1273360 likes
Of course I haven't. You're wrangling endlessly about shame in a thread of shameless people.
Noble DustNovember 26, 2017 at 07:44#1273370 likes
Again, you assume it means less to me. You can't even imagine what this discussion means to me. You're assumption that I'm being ungenerous and that I don't care about the emotional component of this argument is not only egregiously offensive, it's downright sick, twisted, and shaming. That's all I've got, I was gonna respond to the rest of you posts, but I'm out of juice.
"You" or "Your"? I am confused with what you are attempting to say; are you saying that I am sick, twisted and shaming because I said that you were being ungenerous for not actually responding to my question? So, is saying the word "ungenerous" shaming? But, "sick" and "twisted" is not?
Noble DustNovember 26, 2017 at 07:49#1273400 likes
I recall a discussion we had in which you were attempting to "change" someone you cared about, and were remonstrating about the difficulty of it; I was suggesting that attempting to change another person is a lost cause. I wish you well, and I gratefully shake the dust from the sandals of this ugly discussion.
Reply to Noble Dust That was the reason behind asking you how I can respond to such posts by those who shame by not shaming in return. Instead, you do the very thing you are complaining about.
I don't think I am; I'm trying to make clear to you that the legal consequence of your position is that a woman carries part of the blame (is a court would entertain the argument). So if you agree that outcome is incorrect and unjust, you will need to revisit your position.
Noble DustNovember 26, 2017 at 08:12#1273490 likes
I also call bullshit. There's no way I've made so many errors that I'm somehow utterly unintelligible.
I don't mean this as an insult, but literally every post of yours in this discussion has had typos that were confusing, and I've found that to be the case in most discussions with you.
ProbablyTrueNovember 26, 2017 at 08:18#1273510 likes
I don't mean this as an insult, but literally every post of yours in this discussion has had typos that were confusing, and I've found that to be the case in most discussions with you.
Why would you shame Willow like that?
Noble DustNovember 26, 2017 at 08:20#1273520 likes
That's entirely tangential to the point though, as the issue here is not: "How do women handle men who would by them unwanted attention?" but rather that men pay them such attention in the first place.
Teaching women how to handle unwanted attention (whatever that entails) doesn't actually touch the point of concern, which is about how men understand women and how this entails harassment and abuse.
(Y) I think you are articulating yourself perfectly.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 26, 2017 at 08:23#1273540 likes
To which I say: so? How does that justify claiming nothing I've written make any sense, given there we whole section about he topic which didn't have typo? Especially given other people have been making posts on the same topic to which your response has been the same. Suffice to say: it's not my typos which at fault here.
What's insulting isn't that you would point out my typos or be confused by them (or even attack me for the typos making my post more confusing than they ought to be) it's that you would claim this somehow means nothing I've made any sense or I'm not saying anything intelligible. It's either lazy or outright malicious. You either can't be bothered to think in the terms that I'm making a point or are deliberately ignoring what I am saying to claim a supposed rhetorical victory.
"You made some type, so I can't understand part of what you've written" is not an argument identifying meaninglessness or logical incoherence in any universe.
What's insulting is that you would point out my typos or be confused by them, it's that you would claim this somehow means nothing I've made any sense or I'm not saying anything intelligible.
Reading through the typos here, I think I get the gist; and no, when I'm able to read through the typos, I'm able to make sense of what you're saying, but when I'm not able to read through the typos, then no, I'm not able to make sense of what you're saying. That's why typos are a problem.
That was the reason behind asking you how I can respond to such posts by those who shame by not shaming in return.
Since you edited your post from "ok, bye." to this, I'll give it a shot.
What was the reason? The idea of not being able to change people?
What does "those who shame by not shaming in return" refer to? I'm imagining someone being shamed, then not shaming the person who shamed them. And that's the person you're asking me how to respond to, right?
The problem is you then running to conclusions or implications that I'm not saying anything, simply because you haven't been able to understand (whether it be because of typos or not).
You clearly didn't read my last post (or are ignoring it). I absolutely agreed the typos were a problem. Why are you acting like I said otherwise? Why are you pretending I wasn't talking about a problem of assuming someone had said nothing becasue you didn't understand them?
Noble DustNovember 26, 2017 at 08:39#1273640 likes
Ok, at this point I'm so confused that maybe you could just re-state the general argument you're making about shame, in as little words as possible? And, given "as little words as possible", no typos? Again, I don't mean that as an insult. I honestly just don't have a good idea of what you're argument is at this point.
Noble DustNovember 26, 2017 at 08:42#1273700 likes
Hey Posty, come to Australia. My employer needs employees rather desperately and we can hang out together talking philosophy in the corner of the office as we pretend to do work. What say you?
I’ve gone through about three different arguments with you so far, but I’ll return to the first one because I think it's the one you mean.
The argument was immoral actions are shameful. Identifying them means making a person who takes them a subject of shame, both in terms of the themselves and with respect to anyone who recognises the immorality of their actions.
To be immoral is to have negative value, someone who is wrong, someone who needs to change their ways. There is no "positive means" to talk about this because you are literally saying someone's actions or understanding needs to no longer exist.
To understand and identify immoral action means pointing out someone has negative value, it is to shame them.
If we are taking immorality seriously, rather than either excusing it or ignoring it, we shame people who partake it it.
Noble DustNovember 26, 2017 at 09:15#1273800 likes
I disagree; immoral actions aren't shameful; they're immoral. An immoral action isn't moral; it breaks the given moral code; it's immoral. Shame, however, is an emotion. When I commit an immoral action, shame may or may not be involved. Shame is: the acknowledgement of an immoral act, followed by a sense of taboo; not only was the act immoral, but the act is something that should not be talked about or brought up. I.E. rape, molestation, incest, visiting prostitutes, viewing taboo porn...
To be immoral is to have negative value, someone who is wrong, someone who needs to change their ways.
This is another problem with your view; it's self-fulfilling; someone who has negative value is inherently shameful; shame perpetuates their negative value.
Reply to Posty McPostface I am not that good myself, paralysed by a gentle introversion with a fiercely independent mind that makes me both bad at public speaking and at respecting hierarchies. I am packing right now because I will be spending the week in Queensland to speak at some forum they want me to speak in and though they admire and follow me, I just want to be left alone.
I also think that all you need is the passion to want to improve. Everything is will.
Well, that's why I said you've not understood what shame is in this context nor what is being shamed.
Shame in this thread is exactly the opposite of what you suggest. We aren't saying no-one should talk about the shameful actions, just the opposite: we talking about them and how they are wrong at length.
Then you are coming in and saying we can't talk about this, like there ought to be some taboo on pointing out the shameful nature of the objectification and abuse of women.
I'm talking about the shame you brought up: the various attacks that people in this thread had toxic understandings and behaviours.
That's not hiding a topic away under a taboo. It's talking proudly talking about it in the open. The shame attacked is literally the opposite of trying to keep the issue under the rug.
ProbablyTrueNovember 26, 2017 at 09:34#1273870 likes
When I commit an immoral action, shame may or may not be involved.
Immorality and shame are not the same thing, but shame is an emotional byproduct of immoral behavior. If someone doesn't feel ashamed of immoral things they do or say, we call those people sociopaths or psychopaths. In your view, what emotion should someone feel when they commit immoral acts? And to be clear, I(and I'd guess Willow) am not arguing that shame should be a permanent state, but upon recognition of one's own immorality, shame is a good and natural emotion.
Noble DustNovember 26, 2017 at 09:35#1273880 likes
Yes, it is. You directly attacked SLX, Timeline, baden (and maybe me; I can't remember if I had joined at that point) for daring to shame sexism in this thread.
Comments (61561)
I could twist my neck and give you an explanation about why it's right, but I don't really want to play that game. It's just what I would want with a beloved.
I didn't say they were the same thing but that there is a common element which Nietzsche is being critical of.
But I admire Alexander the Great for example. I look up to him, as a great hero, someone who had traits that should be emulated like courage, daring, never say die attitude, etc.
Fine, and no doubt he had others less laudable.
Sure, as all other human beings for that matter.
I was actually just curious, but fine. Anyway, the word possession is wrong, there is something about it that lacks the right tone for the way that I view mutual love. When you say the erotic conqueror wants the other to WANT them, not just to be possessed by them it is no different to trying to sell yourself, turning yourself into a commodity and women do this all the time with their appearances as much as men do with economics. If you are pertaining to matters of the heart, the love given to you is a trust, a willingness because the person loves you because you love, for the person that you are and not for what you sell yourself as.
It is not that it would be a "bad thing" but is it realistic? Sure. Is it probable? The chances go down. Is it necessary? For some yes and others no.
You openly shared that your family during your childhood was less than an emotionally healthy environment and you did what you needed to do to get out of it. All the more power to you in your pursuit of a healthy relationship (Y) and for having it your way, for there should be NO other way.
I am curious as to who in your life has demonstrated the love that you speak of? Are they a close mentor for you that has shown you the path that will get you there? I am not suggesting that it doesn't exist but I am curious if this is an idea from a book?
As an absolute romantic idealist myself, having come from a less than healthy childhood family, I can relate to the Utopian idea of romantic love far easier than I would like to confess the reality of true love.
Depends which sort of erotic conquerer you are talking about. Plenty could care less about the woman wanting them, viewing their exchange purely in terms of how they possessed her for a moment or three. A lot of the could be said to women to want them in a superficial sense, that is, be interested in them enough to have sex, but only as a means to their possession.
The erotic conquerer who is actually interested in someone wanting them isn't entire different in their thought process either. They are treating the desire of the other person as their possession, like it were their own then to take, sustain and hold, by only the measure of their interest.
They think and want the possession of another's heart to be achieved by force.
I don't think it's wrong.
Quoting TimeLine
Of course. Selling yourself means communicating, successfully, who you really are. That's important. If you don't sell yourself, they'll think you are someone different from who you really are.
Quoting TimeLine
Riiight, so like a business deal. They love me because I love them instead of loving me for who I am.
Quoting TimeLine
I am what I sell myself for. Why would I sell myself for someone who I'm not? That wouldn't be a way for me to possess their heart, it would be an opportunity for whoever I sold myself as, who isn't the real me, to possess their heart. It would frustrate my own purposes.
Like Romeo :P
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
It depends on what you mean by "force".
I mean to one thinks the heart of another at their control.
Like one could make another want them no matter what, without any reference to what the person in question wanted.
Possession exactly like the master over the slave, such that nothing could remove what the master wanted of the other person's wants, such that the person wants could violate the wishes of the master.
Why couldn't it be if they become one flesh and one spirit?
For then they are not one: only the one is present, a master who believes the relationship is constituted only in himself, his value and his desire-- a sort of solipsism in which another person is only an image within his own desires.
An account which entirely ignores they have become one in flesh and spirit (if that has happened at all).
Here we go. Read what I wrote, I said they love you for being loving, not for loving them; they love you for who you are. As said by Fromm which I already said before and again and again... again:
Quoting TimeLine
Go on, split the above into section by section and write some hyperbolic remark with an emoticon attached somewhere.
Quoting Agustino
Are you saying that those who are selling themselves are giving an accurate depiction of who they are? Society has formed a false image and tactfully sell themselves according to what the general populace dictates, again, like the conventional neurosis of a sick man trying to adapt himself to a sick society. No, you don't need to "sell" yourself, you just need to "be" yourself and nothing more. You are not a commodity and just because the world today functions under the consumerist marketing stratagem, you should stand above it and simply follow the right ideals. A person who is doing the same will see that in you and love you for it.
I don't think that has anything to do with it. The question isn't if one scared to belong to another or couldn't be the slave to a master; I think is perfectly coherent. Just as slaves can think of themselves as belonging to another, I think people could genuinely think of themselves as belonging to another, even in the sense of their desires.
The issue is that the possession/slave/master account is a is failed description of love; it claims there is only one when in fact there are two who are one.
In other words: what you are describing is a notion of a property right/a possession always forced to a master's wish, rather than love.
A hopeless romantic you are. It strikes me as something that could never been forged in the real world, mostly because it's ill defined and framed in idealistic terms. You demand to be loved before making love and you want to be loved for who you are and not what you are. To be loved is tied to friendship, and what friendship is is probably such a spiritual concept it can't be explained. I'm doubting it resembles the friendships I have with my male friends in non-romantic contexts, and what I am and who I am seem to be the same things, but I hopeless romantic I am not, so I don't know.
All you've said would make me pat myself on the back if I were your father, but I'd also brace myself for the day that this will all unravel when reality collides into this over philosophized worldview that ought be far more pragmatic and mundane than you want to accept. We can quote all the philosophers back to the beginning of time, but the reason you shouldn't have sex with a guy who doesn't care about you is because you'll get hurt, and it will really suck. It won't be just the eating a carton of ice-cream sort of suck, but it'll be the feeling stupid, used, broken hearted sort of hurt that you'll remember for way too long. Whether you think you should love the person first or not, the truth is that if you sleep with the guy, you're going to develop feelings whether you like it or not. I'm sure there are women out there who can have sex without ever developing feelings and I'm told they exist, but I'm also told unicorns exist as well.
Quoting Thorongil
Developing friendships itself is the satisfaction of an instinct, so why do it? Go be a hermit and live in the woods, unless, of course, that too is your instinct, in which case you shouldn't do it because satisfying instincts is bad. There are other philosophical positions other than masochism, you know. Quoting TimeLine
Really now? Your boyfriend could forget your birthday, not buy you a Christmas present, and never send you flowers as long as he remembered to bang you every night really good? How about this, if your boyfriend forgets all that stuff, he's not going to be having sex with you, and that he'll remember. Sure, that may be true for other girls, but not you. Ok Madam Unicorn.
Oddly insightful in places, Handover...
Have you ever been in love? Being in love is full of possession talk, in my experience, e.g., you are mine, I am yours. It might be a kind of metaphor though.
Otherwise, everyone just listen to Hanover and be done with it.
I have, and I don't like the implications that the term possession brings. It's like how people say that they've "fallen in love." Fallen? Like, you fell down a flight of stairs? That's not very romantic to me, even though I understand what most mean when they say that, I think.
It does make sense. If that's what you think, then I think that you just didn't make sense of it.
Quoting TimeLine
No, I'm not saying that [I]we[/I] ought to do [i]anything[/I], because we're not all the same. I'm saying that [I]some[/I] people ought to do [I]something[/I], and [i]other[/I] people ought to [i]something else[/I], depending on circumstance.
Quoting TimeLine
Agreed.
Quoting TimeLine
I will try...
X-)
:D
He's a very cute boy :-O
How come, don't you hunt them?
I wouldn't say those are instincts, but even if they are, my point is that they, like romantic love, require justification beyond appealing to their being "natural." It might be very natural for a psychopath to feel like murdering people, but that doesn't justify murder.
This describes SLX's contribution quite well.
This explains nothing. It's just a declarative statement. Why is it incorrect? And what does romantic engagement depend on?
The reaction is hilarious because I never suggested that sex amongst friends is a good thing :P
Quoting Thorongil
Sure, but they're not just friends.
Quoting Thorongil
>:O
This is at odds with my impression, but I'm sure it's true for many people.
Quoting TimeLine
Trying to turn the tables on me I see! I wouldn't say it's a bad thing. But just because something isn't wrong doesn't make it right either. So I'm still missing justification.
Quoting TimeLine
But I read this as saying that there is no reason to become romantically engaged. Thus, if you desire this, and correct me if I'm wrong on that score, are you saying you don't know why?
From the days of my youth, I remember young lads being like "you must take the car for a test drive before buying it" >:O
Quoting Thorongil
Well, it's sort of like, why do you want justification? If something is natural, it needs no justification. You only need justification when changing course from what is natural. If it's natural to sleep, you're not going to ask "what's the justification for sleep?" - you'll ask the opposite - "what's the justification for not sleeping?"
As I have pointed out several times now, this commits the naturalistic fallacy. There are plenty of things that come naturally to one which it would be positively immoral, unwise, or uncouth to do.
Quoting Agustino
We're on a philosophy forum. No question, including this one, is off limits, and I think it's a perfectly legitimate one.
:-} It's not about coming naturally to "one" but rather coming naturally to human beings as such.
Quoting Thorongil
Every question makes prior assumptions. That's what some good philosophy essay I read many years ago said, and I agree. So philosophy is as much about what questions we ask as it is about what answers we give. If you are looking for an answer to a stupid question, you're unlikely to find it.
This only reminds me that you never gave a satisfactory response to my post here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/115770
Quoting Agustino
I don't think asking why one ought to sleep is a stupid question. It's one way of asking why one ought to live, for the predictable answer one will receive is that one ought to sleep because it is necessary to live. The question of whether to be or not to be is not stupid.
That's what my highschool girlfriend used to say :-O
[hide="..."](just kidding) :D[/hide]
Quoting Thorongil
I'm not sure if it's necessary to sleep to live. The mechanism that governs our physical need for sleep isn't well understood. There are claims of people who never sleep.
So a better question isn't why should you sleep, but rather what makes sleep physically necessary for the functioning of the organism. Likewise, a better question isn't why you should have sex with a person in marriage, but what role sex as an activity plays in a marriage between people - what emotional needs it meets, etc.
Well, when you quote me out of context like that, then it will look that way. However, in truth, I did explain myself, just not to your satisfaction, and I don't comment here for your satisfaction. If you want further explanation, then simply request it instead of playing games.
I have already answered your questions in a reply to Timeline. It depends on the person, and it depends on circumstance. Use your imagination.
I didn't appeal to nature to justify sexuality. I only pointed out that the suppression of desire has no intrinsic value. Deriving pleasure from pain is masochistic. The reason you shouldn't kill has nothing to do with whether it makes you happy or not. I've not argued hedonism.
I could order a simple thing like a book off Amazon, the trouble with that is that I need a way to control the date it gets delivered on, which I cannot do on Amazon. At least not accurately. I've had trouble with it in the past, very bad service for delivering on time. Is there a book ordering thing in UK that delivers on time or where you can arrange a delivery date?
These days I get my books in digital form from an app on my mobile, and before that, it was Amazon, so that probably doesn't help.
Just shop around and you'll find something. I wasn't even shopping for any presents, but I found a Perpetual Disappointment Diary - "Now With Added Disappointment" - in Sainsburys, and I bought it because I thought that it would make a good Christmas present.
She didn't say that or you had no such girlfriend?
That's [i]my[/I] line.
Exactly when was the historical era of sexually appropriate behavior and relationships? My point being that you aren't speaking of normative behavior. You're speaking of idealistic behavior. That is, lovers ought be friends versus lovers are friends. I generally agree, although lover friendship isn't the same as buddy friendship which isn't the same as parent/child friendship etc.
You should like who you love, sure. That'd be best. I don't really like my brother though, but I love him at some level.
Friendships itself is a powerful expression of this idealism. I am thinking more along the lines of Thoreau's practical idealism, where in friendships there is the shared love of certain principles and virtue; you cannot be friends with someone who does not correspond to these conditions you believe in or adhere to. In non-romantic contexts, these principles would mean things like trust, humour, equality etc., and these are advantageous because you have set conditions that attract friends with whom there is a common devotion to these ideals.
When you meet a friend, you align your standards with their personality based on these principles, but when you meet a woman it is entirely different; you see only the surface, what they offer you sexually alone and then afterwards try to get to know them, change them, tolerate them etc. Friendships enable us to experience another "person" and thus someone who we recognise as independent and separate from us but united by an idealism, while sexually women become non-person or an object who must correspond to what makes you feel sexual pleasure, thus entirely selfish.
This may not be "forged in the real world" as you say because I am sure that if most men started viewing their partner as their friend, they would probably realise that they do not like their partner at all. I don't why you think it is all that strange that I think friendship comes first.
Quoting Hanover
In the end, it is my preference that matters and meeting someone who shares the same preferences; that is why I would prefer to develop feelings for someone as my friend first rather than developing feelings for someone after sleeping with him only to find out that he is deranged. I do not agree with the highly imaginative historical approach either and that attitude is really a justified form of an enlarged egotism. Mine was formerly also problematic, I admit that, as the primary reason I pushed men away was to protect and prevent myself from being hurt and I have only recently become conscious that these preventative measures were too extreme that I never let anyone in at all; I believe that may have been intentional because I was in "flight" mode. I have been learning the "fight" mode and have been challenging myself by being present but it doesn't mean I am wrong in my decision to seek friendship first.
Quoting Hanover
Yes, really. I would never celebrate "anniversaries" because I don't set dates and times to my experiences with people, just as much as I would never publish my affections for someone on social networking. It is a superficial show for an audience. Romance is not chocolates and flowers on particular days, it is an affirmation of his love or affection for me on any day, that he values me or admires me is not something that can be written on a $3 card from woolworths. If that makes me madam unicorn (what the fuck?) then fine.
The 'right' bit only comes to the fore when the circumstances are right for you and so long as it is not wrong overall, then it is entirely relative. From your perspective, do you not think that family or the community are important? Can that not be a justification? There are only two possible wrongs here: pursing romantic relationships with the wrong person because you follow your sexual instincts or because it is socially welcomed, and the other is to reject the right person for you because it is socially unwelcome or because you refuse to follow your heart because of some said belief. I think the latter is actually evil; if you meet a virtuous and kind woman but abandon the prospect of forming a bond with her, you are doing a great wrong. The door needn't be shut and locked.
Quoting Thorongil
When I say that no one ought to become romantically engaged, it does not mean, again, that the door be shut and locked completely. There is the possibility that you may never meet the right person, or that you are asexual etc., but these need to be acknowledged as the reasons and not by some philosophical justification. You should welcome the prospect but under the right conditions where principles of virtue are the primary impetus in forming a bond with another. I think that men and women who attempt celibacy are learning the strengths of being morally virtuous and controlling the instinctual in their decision-making process, but it is not a life-long regulation of sorts.
What, really? I suddenly feel like this:
That is not a bad idea, thanks. I've also thought about buying him a nice pen with his name engraved on it, guys tend to like such ego boosts, and doesn't seem too gay, nor too expensive :D
Quoting Hanover
Hmm, I doubt it would work even if I had a gf, cause my gf would have to at least know him (he's from the UK, so unlikely). Otherwise, it would still be strange if my girlfriend sent him a present from both of us >:O
Oh, and I forgot to mention that the chocolates would come with a gift card too >:O >:O >:O - even gayer together >:O
Quoting Sapientia
And do you want a prize?
Quoting Sapientia
Yes, I would too.
Quoting Sapientia
>:O - who are you giving it to?
Quoting Thorongil
She didn't say that >:O, though maybe she did at some point. Can't remember exactly.
Quoting Hanover
Right, sex does create a deeper level intimacy.
Well, I guess that settles that. We should apply that to other areas too. I can just see that reporter: "There you have it folks. The murderer went out of his way to deny he killed anyone so he must be innocent."
Oh yes, I'm buying a couple of those for presents. Definitely. Along with Modern Toss: Mindless Violence Colouring Book and F*ck That: An Honest Meditation by Jason Headley. Also by Jason, Five Give Up the Booze (Enid Blyton for Grown Ups) ...
Oh, but you do post pictures of your baked goods for all to see and admire and oogle over and make you feel good about your accomplishments, >:O O:)
With saliva dripping by our cheeks, falling down to the blood-stained shoes of the Empress of the known world TimeLine? >:O I have a gut feeling that TimeLine would be a ruthless dic-tator >:)
Her first order would be entitled "The Liquidation of Agustino" :D - it would entail using the newest technology available to set Agustino free so that he can fly by liquifying him, and then vaporizing him in the scorching sun.
:P
Quoting Buxtebuddha
Hopefully not this kind? >:)
No, now that you've come crawling back to us after your fake protest "leaving" we're going to let you stay and play a while.
You must be dreaming. Buxters never said he was leaving, did he?
Yes, he had a tantrum after one of our mod decisions then ran away before limping back with his tail between his legs.
Yep (Y)
Nope. That was me and Thorongil, not Buxters.
Correction: Right, I see. Respect for Buxters has increased now (Y) . Another fellow warrior :D
(the Alexandra was on purpose as was the emoticons, knowing you probably wouldn't get it)
Anyways, im off! I hate using my phone.
(1) I speculate they may be able to see PMs (I don't see why the administrator of the server can't. I don't imagine Plush alone holds access to the database of the site. If he has access to the database, then at least that person can access PMs for sure - even if somehow the data was encrypted).
(2) If you get banned, I think you can't send PMs anymore.
Yes, because I am what you'll never be 8-) - that's why there cannot be two suns in the sky, nor two Alexanders on earth ;)
Lol.
Why you think we would be interested in what you and Bustedbuddha blather on about in private is what's funny.
I don't talk with Buxters by PM actually, sorry to disappoint you. The last time he PMed me was about 4 months ago. I didn't even know he left in protest until today.
Who cares? I didn't bring it up. I just find it amusing.
:-d I talk more to you by PM more than I talked to Buxters historically I think >:O
Lucky me. :s :D
>:O Do you want TimeLine to have a heart attack?
Eh, good point.
Don't be silly, I will support you as moderator as long as you continue to allow me to treat you like Baldrick.
Jesus, you really do have a child for a president.
Hmmm yes. In fact, I think we may very well have more. A state of anarchy doesn't mean that there are no rules, it just means that the rules aren't centralised by one single entity.
Government just appropriates and steals the property of those who actually work, that's why they can run huge and inefficient expenses (military, etc.) without concern. How can people who don't know how things move in this world run it? :s I don't know about the developed world, but here in the developing world, politicians are the worst people you can find - the most incapable, vindictive, etc. If a politician messes up, nothing happens to him. The country can never go bankrupt.
Say a tax inspector comes around to inspect your taxes. Someone who never managed to do anything with his life, is now coming to boss me around and purposefully find faults because I refuse to bribe him. Great. So let's get this straight - this person, the tax inspector, has done nothing productive for anyone. But yet he gets to come as a landlord to take other people's hard earned money? :s Why?
The government should find a way to earn money. Actually earn it, not appropriate other people's profits. I have no problem if government competes in a free market, sells me electricity, etc. or whatever. I don't even have a problem if they make me pay a fixed sum a year to use roads, police, etc. They should operate like a business. Exploit a country's natural resources, infrastructure, etc. and make money.
But to tax my revenue (referring to VAT) or my profits? :s That's ridiculous.
And imagine how easy it would be without taxes. I wouldn't even need to keep records, etc. the way the government wants them. I could just keep records that are actually useful to me - that actually make sense.
Oh, so you want to do something to me with a pencil... interesting. You must have learned that from Hanover. That's what happens when you spend too much time with him.
Is it a bad thing if I just want to bake cookies and watch Christmas movies instead of taking part in the pressure of the commercialization of this holiday season? :s
Too bloody early. By the time we get to it we'll be sick of it. But, yeah, the jingle of coins in commercial pockets...
Mae govannen, mellon nín.
I know the book. It was given as a present to my brother during his stint as a reckless drunk. I have [I]Five On Brexit Island[/I]. It's presently sitting across from me on my bookshelf along with my other books.
Yes, it's called starvation. Animal welfare is just sooo PC.
Hey, what the? That wasn't the remote I was fondling?? :-*
You're such a humorless little lump sometimes. You should get yourself excised. Anyway, it was aimed at Sapientia who's not a conservative and it has nothing to do with you or your political stablemates; I'm sure y'all spread your love over as many animals as you can find. Speaking of stablemates... :-O
15% less adorable than my calico. Still, pretty good cat you got there.
What?
Cat's sure have a good life, given a willing and able provider. Heh.
I don't know, it must be by default because you're European that you seem to just lag behind. I bet your favourite singer for 2017 is Britney Spears, practicing your dance moves in front of the mirror in your high-waisted man undies and fluffy pink headband. :P
Of course I lag behind. Last time I watched a movie was like almost 1 year ago I think, and last time I watched TV... like 3-4 years ago? :P
The better to see you with.
Day 8. I can't seem to find the address you wanted me to send my In law to. Could you kindly post it for me? Oh and did I tell you she loves hiking? I bet with a bit of notice, she could hike all the way to where you are. Impressive for her age, eh?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-41992344
Lol.
Or ban him and replace him with a bot. (Y) Can you make it happen Q? :B
@jamalrob
*Rubs hands gleefully* (No, no idea but...*rubs hands gleefully again*).
New Zealand and the USA? Why is this even allowed to take place in 2017?
"Australia is under increased pressure to resettle asylum-seekers from Manus Island because that center is due to close on Oct. 31. Australia would need to make alternative arrangements should the bulk of the 800 men still be there by that deadline." Yet the Aussie Government saw it fit to destroy the water tanks they did have, as a child records the crime against the inhumane treatment of any human.
WOW! Do I have the challenge for you Agustino! Please solve a practical problem like having your mother in law live with you, in a van down by the river (in her best SNL's Chris Farley voice) when this is the FIRST Autumn in 21 years that NicK and I have been without children residing here at the ranch, fulltime anyway.
I will hold my breath waiting on you solution since you can do it 4 times faster than I ever could.
:-O
Right, because we all know that a marriage certificate issued by the state confers human dignity, whatever that is, on a person. :-}
Quoting Thorongil
Would it be too much to ask that you heed your own comment? Or at least stop being a hypocrite. Cheers. (Y)
Quoting StreetlightX
How... dignified of you.
Gosh, I hope not.
When a mod is sarcastic towards you, you whine, call it bitter and use every opportunity to seek pity for your "ill-treatment" then you go around deliberately trying to provoke mods with exactly the type of behaviour you criticize, so you can seek more excuses to complain. It's the lowest of the low in terms of forum behaviour.
No, you're a classic hypocrite who cries about poor treatment and then does exactly what he complains about. And what's worse then makes up ridiculous excuses for it such as the accusation that Street's post was absurd. Well guess what? The sarcasm directed at your posts was because they were absurd. If you want to stop sarcasm being directed at you stop doing it yourself, or stop whining about it. That's your binary choice. It's that simple.
Sure, and nothing in the sarcastic posts directed at you was bitter then. Your definition of "bitter" is when a mod does it. And it's not the first time you've pulled this with Street either. Anyway, I'm not interested in a slagging match with you, I'm just informing you your complaints about bitter sarcasm aren't going to be taken seriously any more for obvious reasons.
Oh but they were. I did not expect a different outcome to the Australian vote. I'm not angry about it. I'm disappointed perhaps, but not angry and never attacked anyone's person. The sarcastic posts on the gun thread were of a distinctly vitriolic character. I was branded as someone unsympathetic to victims of mass murder and even an accomplice to such crimes. If you don't see the difference, that might be because you enthusiastically supported the latter kind of sarcasm.
Quoting Baden
Odd, because I've never put much stock into what you take seriously, so I'm not sure why you think I would care.
It wasn't just the gun discussion. Here's an example of a comment by a mod in another discussion which you labelled as "a case in point" of the bitter sarcasm you were complaining about:
Quoting Michael
So that's unacceptable is it?
Whereas this by you is totally fine:
Quoting Thorongil
---------------------
I'm not defending bad forum behaviour by anyone including myself, I am saying your complaints of bitter sarcasm are obviously hypocritical, so don't expect them to be taken seriously any more.
That was shown to be a misunderstanding, so I retracted the charge.
Also, I see nothing untoward about posting a humorous GIF. The guy literally dismissed a demonstrable historical fact (which is that the Nazis prohibited Jews from owning guns, while relaxing restrictions on the rest of the German population) by deeming it "fantasy," "insidious," "politically asphyxiating," and "conspiratorial delusion." That kind of reaction is so ridiculous that really only a GIF is appropriate. It still cracks me up.
Exactly how we felt about your comments in the gun discussion although we didn't go as far as to post childish gifs in response, and some of us, including me, took your complaints seriously and decided to tone things down. You'll notice I haven't treated your comments in that way since then. You, on the other hand, have continued to do so. I didn't expect you to admit that or admit you'd done anything wrong but that's your loss.
I want as much diversity here as possible too. I also welcome feedback and complaints. But not hypocrisy. That's all really. Thorongil will continue to do as he wishes as I suppose.
By the way no, he didn't do that at all. And it's shameful to pretend that he did. What he did was criticize the comparison between the Nazi state and the present situation in America. It's not even ambiguous.
Quoting StreetlightX
(Italics mine.)
... Which is a response to a claim no one made. I brought up the fact in question about Nazi gun control, no one else. He made his post not long after that, so it was clear that he was responding to me. That leaves us with two options: either he meant to respond to what I said, in which case his post is a hysterical denial of a plain historical fact, or he sincerely wanted to make the point you attribute to him here, in which case he is knocking down a strawman and still open to rebuke for the ludicrous verbiage he employed.
I complained about SXL, Baden's and your behaviour in that thread somewhere in feedback as I thought the discussion was less than it could be due to the mudslinging involved aside from the arguments forwarded.
Also, your above summary is not how the point about Nazi Germany came accross. To me, it came across as an argument against stricter gun laws. It wasn't just a fact but a point of argument by extrapolating an historical fact as somehow applying to the USA somewhere and sometime in the possible future. You haven't shown it does. SXL's reply wasn't a denial of a historical fact but the application of it as a valid argument in light of the very real deaths currently caused by gun-crazies in the USA. In that light, he wasn't knocking down a strawman and you should've explained why that possible future is sufficiently likely to be taken into account.
And you cannot do that by saying, see it happened in Germany in the 1930s. On the other hand, I suppose it's good to know you think there's a clear moral, political, cultural and socio-economic equivalence between the USA now and Nazi Germany.
1. check the wheels.
2. release the handbrake.
3. push.
How much do I charge Ag?
Yes, and it was fair criticism. I'm steering clear of those discussions now (the one the quote is from is a more recent one btw). I find it difficult to be patient with the other side on that issue. Maybe, I'll get there eventually.
It's just a general rule that we don't allow those kinds of images (except in the off-topic categories like the Lounge). Images are fine if they're actually relevant to the topic, e.g. a graph to show some data, or an optical illusion to discuss perception, but otherwise they're just not acceptable. Same for videos.
We might have been more lax if it weren't for a certain poster constantly using Star Trek gifs as responses. Kinda compelled us to be stricter about it.
Quantify how much this is worth in terms of money to Tiff. Include things like food saved, nerves improved, etc. Call that value X.
Now I will charge Tiff 10% of X. So in order to accept your offer, you must charge me some percent of 10% of X :D
Sure, why not? I seem to remember you running a few victory laps when Trump became President. I didn't piss on your parade. ;)
Of course you didn't, cause you were wrong :D
You were too busy running with the tail between your legs lol
I made no bets regarding Australia and gay marriage, I didn't even know about this until I overheard it on the radio yesterday.
Actually, what I said was Hillary deserved to lose and I never supported her. But yes, you were right in your prediction and I was wrong. Well done!
Do I also get a pat on the head? :D lol
Aw, ok then. *Pats Agu on head*. :)
Why?
Because they jump up and down celebrating, like crazy people :D
Quoting Michael
I fixed it.
That's most celebrations. So that they're progressives and that they're celebrating the vote in favour of same-sex marriage has nothing to do with it?
Of progressives :D
Lots of conservatives celebrate by jumping up and down, too?
I don't think one's method of celebration is a partisan issue.
Progressives:
Conservatives:
Can you see how some are serious people, while others are not? :D
[hide]>:O[/hide]
First US election I didn't even do any predicting. That should've been alarm bells enough as I called Obama already on October 25, 2007, and erred on the side of caution with Bush's re-election. I also called Obama the likely first hero of the 21st century if he caught Osama. Seems catching terrorists is "no biggie" though as nobody ever really credits him with it.
Why do you think it was such a big thing?
There were lots of rumors going around that US already effectively knew where he was, they were just waiting for the opportune moment to get him.
Called him on the phone? :-O
It's not so much that I think it's a big thing but didn't the US invade Afghanistan because the Taliban were harbouring him? So they basically started a war to catch one guy. I would expect Obama to be celebrated more because of that success, after spending several years and a couple of billion dollars.
Do you think that could be true?
Officially yes. But what about them rare earth metals underneath the ground? And why does the US still have troops there?
Quoting Benkei
I fixed it for you.
Quoting Benkei
Yeah, maybe you're some really influential guy, how can I know? :P
Great, then I told the story correctly and I'll leave it at that. :P
EDIT: actually my influencing skills are so terrible at times I cannot even convince my manager he should stuff his gut feelings and listen to reason. Now it's time to change my profile pic...
Try some bitter sarcasm. That always works. :)
Well, it seems to me that managers can never be convinced - it's like trying to convince parents. They both view you as the one who should be managed and influenced, not the one who should influence unfortunately :D The ones that can be convinced are rarer - the reasonable ones, that is.
What about bitter cranky sarcasm?
All for that too. (Y)
Do you listen to the radio? And here I was thinking you were a hermit who erected a hut with sticks by a pond somewhere in the wormwood forest near Chernobyl, becoming the perverse source of local pride especially for your consummate relationship with your violin.
$1.07 trillion.
2.7 trillion.
For example?
I thought we were talking about images? You mean a picture of a quote or a cartoon of a quote, right?
[hide]
I don't know what's wrong with that. If I can't get my point across in this way, *gives up.*
I don't see anything wrong with it except maybe the mod thought you could have just written it. I don't know tbh.
Which is not to say that I would have removed it, myself; it's just my personal feeling on the matter. However I can see how some mods might class it as low post quality, if posted without any other content.
I wish you wouldn't give up trying to express yourself on the topic of firearms but I cannot fault your decision, for I made the same choice. It was because of the belittling, lack of mutual respect and the self congratulations of a topic "won", followed by a High 5 by a couple members of the staff, that was the final straw for me. When in reality what was really "won" was one more forum member walking away from what could have been a respectful discussion.
This means that images in themselves can't be relevant or appropriate to the topic at hand if the content within the image isn't what's judged.
Quoting jamalrob
If it's not relevant, what's keeping you from removing it?
Quoting jamalrob
That wasn't the case, though, hence my muted exasperation.
I agree completely, Tiff. But, there's only so much one can do when moderators aren't really accountable for their behavior. Slaps on the wrists, moves on...
Words to consider from a new member
To be fair @Michael said
Quoting Michael
There's not necessarily an inconsistency there.
Joke...
We're accountable to each other, and ultimately to @jamalrob. Just this week I deleted some stuff from Baden and Sap.
Only [i]he[/I] is allowed to joke around. It doesn't work both ways.
@Buxtebuddha And I've deleted mod comments too. So, we do keep an eye on each other.
Yes, that was an odd one. *Shrug*
At the same time, consistency is overrated. When I don't sleep enough I'm irritable and curt. I might say things I don't mean or not in a way that's well thought out or well received. Everybody has off days so a bit of forbearance towards each other is in order too.
Yes, we're never going to be 100% consistent, but I hope we come across as fair to most posters here despite our faults.
1. Only he is allowed to joke around. It doesn't work both ways.
2. Complains of belittling atmosphere in discussion, yet contributes belittling comments.
3. Expresses wish to focus on substance, yet chooses not to focus on substance.
4. Replies to a complaint about self-congratulation with emphatic agreement, resulting in self-congratulation.
5. And, of course, complains of alleged double standards of others, yet is himself guilty of double standards.
Baden, you do come across as fair to most, if not all posters, despite your faults and that is what I try to return to you and my fellow forum members, despite all of my faults.
So today I arrived at the bus stop and a plump woman was already waiting so I asked "When's the bus due, you fat cunt?". She said: "I'm fucking pregnant!".
People are born with personalities? :D
Just mate already, for fuck's sake.
You seem more of a creepy lollypop lady with your freakish cat if ever I saw one. Not as creepy as @Benkei who preaches against double-standards while committing it himself.
Even a Dune reference. Nice.
Funny, I never raised the issue of double standards, merely get accused of it by you on what's becoming a regular basis. Whatever floats your boat I suppose.
I think you should give the lollipop to your starving cat you impulsively sadistic bastard.
As for me though I would say that it's a myth that women have to gain more than like twenty pounds while all pragos, and it's eating more, and not doing as much that makes them get fat, not being pragos, She would then respond that that is because I stopped taking her places. I then would back step, and be all like "why do you keep bringing that up? Everyone's always blaming others, but I would rather not get into who's become -- of now fault of their own -- slow and lame... a complaining turtle. The very last thing, anyone wants, on any adventure. Yeah, it's my fault but waddaya want from me,? I told you that you didn't look fat in that this morning, I'm not fucking Gandhi... you're still hotter babe".
Yes, especially because like everything I write here is totally true.
I've actually been around for a while. I was a member at the old PF (mostly a lurker) and was fortunate enough to jump ship before it totally capsized. I took a long break from philosophy and politics to "study" the important subject of video games. Now that I'm done with that, I decided to see if you guys were still here arguing about the same old things. I'm not disappointed! :)
**Edit**
There are some people missing though. Robert Lockhart, the Austrian guy who always posted pictures of his cats, 180, PMB. What happened to them?
Wrong. They're a bunch of cunts. Fat lady jokes, Jesus, hand me my Glock.
*Shoots Hanover in the head*
Oops, my mistake. Anyone got a mop??
In consecutive order: was here not too long ago, don't know who you mean, joined but never comments, joined and hung around for a while but went off the radar a long time ago. I don't know why 180 Proof, Postmodern Beatnik, or Busycuttingcrap for that matter, don't participate like they used to. I guess people change and shit happens.
Yes. Here, [i]catch![/I]
*Throws mop in Baden's face*
+Hanover. Used to be a reg. But someone shot him in the personality. Mostly hangs out in intensive care now.
Lol. Just doing my job you wedding-attender. :D
I first read that as "insensitive care", and I thought to myself, "Sounds like my kinda place".
Cunt. :D
You should really visit Hanover. Tell him I said hello. Hope the coma wears off some time. (Y)
*Throws another mop in Baden's face*
Jesus you need to stop adding stuff to your posts after I respond to them. Now I need to insult you back you fucking OCD.
Not bad for the first post of page 666 of the Shout box. Let's keep this morbid.
This, coming from delicate Delilah: "I'm not angry, Benkei!", "Stop calling me emotional!". >:o
Goes back to wallowing.
Shit. Sorry to hear that.
Do owls hang upside down? Maybe if you're an owl, and but also batman-owl. Batowl
Don't use the c word and a bunch of times though. I remember one time I did on a date, and then I was like oh fuck, to myself, so I just apologized -- then she said something like "yeah, when I was growing up there were two words you never say so casually, "cunt", and "cocksucker". It could have been implying that a lot of the stuff gay guys do, straight women also do, so while you diatribe about how disgusting it is to consider sucking cock, or making fun of doing basically female sexual acts, well, don't expect many forthcoming.
What would your dad think of all that wallowing?
No. [I]Me[/I] owl, [i]you[/I] ass.
You're right actually. I remember I said that in front of a woman once and felt bad about it and apologized. Although I wasn't on a date and it was about Boris Johnson so it may be forgivable.
That totally happened. I didn't mention at the time that I thought she might have attempted to gauge my reaction, cause she might of thought I was gay, but I was also dumb as shit back then. I'm finally ready to be infallible again though.
Timeline refuses your not-so-subtle invitation to a coffee date. At least that's what Hanover told me. (Actually he said "bhubbbbvvv..uhhhhh" but that's what he meant.)
>:O
Yes, I think not mentioning that word is a good start. In Thailand, one of the rules is "Don't show up in shorts". One of my dates once told me she ran away when she saw another date show up wearing shorts. She asked me "Was that bad?"
Y'all should pity my daughter, I know I do whenever I'm Jekyll. Also I wouldn't dare saying that in real life because fat people can squash me like a bug.
It being Thailand, how did you know she was a she?
I can out-Hanover Hanover any day of the week. I don't just steal personalities, I outshadow the originals.
Just a guess. It's basically a roll of the dice,Benk. ;)
Well, you've a much better chance of doing that now for sure.
Nurse! Nappy change needed over here...
Only an accomplishment if they're shady individuals...
I don't know what that is about, but I think that it's more that women tend to be more sensitive to emotive expressions, and men to measurable ones. Calling someone an idiot, doesn't actually mean much measurably, but it tells you how they feel about them, at least in that moment.
Calling a dude impotent, ineffectual, a loser, incapable of, or bad at the things they do, then all kinds of butthurt ensues. Women though, are more like, "now, I think they're a great person, I really like them... but omg, the way she just leaves her shit all over the place, she just has no consideration for others. She doesn't clean, never cooks, eats my food, misses work all the time, and did you see the way she talks to him, you know who... I mean, great person and everything, but like bad at life."
Listening to 50 Cent? >:O
They are. (Look! Donald Trump had quintuplets!)
Yes, one time someone at work told me I didn't do my job properly. Much anger ensued. (I can't remember if I did do my job properly or not. But as far as I was concerned that was irrelevent.)
>:)
Sorry to hear :(
The Austrian guy with cats is my virtual older brother the Mayor of Simpleton. He was here a lot more in the inception of The Philosophy Forum, in fact he took a personal hit of being moved off the Contributor list at PF for contacting members and pointing them over here, before he was no longer allowed to access his Private Messages. Mayor had the instinct and insight to see that PF was sinking and began the evacuation process before abandoning the PF ship, saving as many folks as he could with the best of intentions.
That's my brother, he always takes the best of care with those he gives two hoots about. (L)
>:O lol!!!
I think that they're probably just brain-damaged, because they had bad parents. Thoughts?
Yes, Hanover used to be left-handed. Now he's ambideadstrous, I'm afraid. :’(
The arrogance of some people...
Mayor of Simpleton.
Quoting ProbablyTrue
He lived in Austria but wasn't Austrian, as far as I'm aware?
I was in Thailand for 6 months. I only wore shorts. My legs would have melted if I wore trousers. Hottest place I've ever been.
They're usually easy to spot. Or rather hear. The put-on voice is very telling.
Hey, man, I'm drooling over your dating advice. All I've got is "Don't wear shorts."
No wonder you didn't score...
Yes. Because a young white man in Thailand is going to go through a dry spell just because he wears shorts. ;)
The hottest place I've ever been is the inside of an oven. A witch put me there because I ate her candy house, or because I was a people pleaser. One of those. Damn, I'm done. Take the baton, Wos. Go weird and wonderful.
If you consider "don't call them cunts" to be insightful dating advice, then there may be no helping you.
[/hide]
Quoting Michael
Ahh yes thanks. Is TheGreatWhatever another of the now MIA?
I wear big v-neck shirts that really show off the man-cleavage, and randomly pretend to be talking to several people that I obviously am not, in order to act disengaged as more and more of them vie for my attention.
If by MIA you mean banned, yes.
Discharge isn't sexy.
In all odors and hues? Surely you have a goldilock zone, everyone does.
You are right in that he is not from Austria but the States, Virginia I think, but now lives with Ms. Simpleton in Austria.
What sort of fine china should we register for? I was thinking two children, one our own, the other an adopted Swedish lesbian, but not the flannel sort, but the nice kind like I watch on my phone. For our first dance, I was thinking Pearl Jam's "Better Man." You must read the lyrics. It is so us. XOXOXO. The rest of the world can go to hell. We have us!
I retract my previous statement. You're all a bunch of dipshits, except Wosret. And I was going to dedicate 'Delilahs Delicious Desserts' to you, but no more!
U may hv a pt der...R dis may b a jk. (C, signld it 4 u dis time (Y)).
What you need to do bitchwhore is simply be more secure in our love and stop playing these mindgames. I am too clever to respond to you just from seeing my name in one of your posts. You are nothing special, just another run of the mill person, whose legs I did not even notice through the cupcake covered glass table.
I shall now go and set fire to Wosret's house for no special reason. I am just fine, but need the flames from his most treasured belongings to warm my heart.
Thank God at least Hanover has a personality. Those words sustain me my Shit-tit.
Well that's a shame. Was it suicide-by-cop-esque?
Yeah, I suppose it was.
Yeah, whoops! Seems obvious now. I think with all of the recent talk about Australia, I misread.
The echoes of my nervous laughter roam the earth like a travelling gypsy, but I see you are testing my tolerance, to leverage power over me as you try to assert your dominance through aggression and yet you fail to see that is impossible for I see straight through you as you see my legs through the cupcake container.
The question to ask yourself is how can you fear the rejection of a woman if she is not even aware of your affections? It is not that I want to be treasured, but your ambiguity will only lead to my hostility and not to my affection. And, O how much affection I have and none to give it to! To embrace your strong arm when the thrill of a horror movie is at its peak, texting one another late night jokes while lying in bed as we flirt and yearn for one another, my soft lips pecking your cheek when we meet and greet at the local cafe for brunch as one step closer to the goal of our union. O, the desolation!
Quoting Hanover
Leave us alone!
>:O >:O >:O LOOOOOOL - this is hilarious. Manipulation at its best :D
No, I never said that. Not all are, but some most definitely are, and that much should be as undeniable as saying that some men are physically violent.
Of course, so what? Are you denying that men are more likely to be physically violent than women for example?
I said silence!
[hide=". . ."]( you're already manipulative enough even without watching it :D )[/hide]
There's a window of about 5 minutes after my shower that I'm not.
How does that come into this? To compare our positions: you want a smaller state and are in favour of economic liberalism*, whereas I want a bigger state and am against economic liberalism.
So, to tie that in, presumably, my overlooking it ought to gain your approval, whereas, really, I ought to assert my authority and camp down on that kind of thing.
But this is social, not economic. And socially, our positions are almost reversed, with you as the conservative and me as the liberal.
*This is amusing, because you have this in common with neoliberalism, which you recently decried.
Quoting Sapientia
No, I don't have anywhere near the same degree of economic liberalism with regards to financial speculation nor multinational corporations.
Such a sweetheart you are but when I went to book my first class ticket to TimeLine's place, your credit card was denied. Then they asked me why I would be wanting to purchase ANOTHER ticket to Australia since I had just purchased one last night. Any travel plans in your future you might want to tell us about?
Quoting Posty McPostface
Any correlation we should be concerned about? As much as we joke, we do it because we love, so know that what you are going through is not lost on your group of friends here and as always, you can reach out to me in a Private Message as I am sure others as well.
Take care of yourself and remember we can be a rock in the sea of absurdity we call "life".
You are in many regards the glue of the community here for a lot of people I think. That's good!
"What I want, Cloud, is to sail the darkness of the cosmos with this planet as my vessel, just as my mother did long ago. Then one day we'll find a new planet. And on its soil, we'll create a shining future." - Sephiroth.
You demon. No need to be hatin' though, it ain't a contest. It clearly isn't a contest.
Ain't that the truth, :(
He is both. I doubt he is smart enough to regret.
Stalking, the final stage of a man's madness. So, there is a clear trend here. They fear rejection so play stupid games, games the girl has no clue about, thinks he's weird, then he jumps to passionate love, freaks the girl out, then gets maniacal and aggressive, freaks the girl out even more, then stalks her and freaks her out even more then the more, before he abandons her because it is just too hard, when all he needed to do at the beginning is say, "hey, would you like to go for a coffee?"
And they think girls are emotional?
Back in character... My lass, whatever shall I do to earn a simple peck on the cheek and perhaps, if you would be so kind, something more?
And they wonder why so many ladies are choosing to be Lesbians. 8-)
Men have no monopoly on game playing. I say this realizing it will confuse you because Monopoly is itself a game and that's a lot to keep straight.
Thanks, Tiff. You are as sweet as ever, my dear.
For the record, I think that everyone wishes, and pretends to be better than they are, I think that even the greatest zen masters can lose track of authenticity under the right pressures. The Buddha wouldn't even enter the palace when he went back to visit his family. It's fantastic to resist corruptions, it's reckless and arrogant to place oneself willingly in known corrosive circumstances.
Lets not race for a moment, to the bottom or the top. Women have to be dangerous, otherwise they are not different than children or pets. It isn't like dudes are good, and girls evil. Dudes are more likely to just use violence. A dude that couldn't just use violence, needs to scheme, plan, team up and such. In a lecture course (it was awhile ago, I don't recall which), they said that Zeus was considered psychologically feminine in a lot of ways. Be was bi-sexual, but more importantly, he beat Kronos no with a direct one on one display of greater physical power, which is why all other attempts failed, but by teaming up, sharing the glory, scheming and planning.
I don't believe that women are like innately manipulative, nor that they are by any measure worse than men (not to mention that in Utena, it is the manipulative dudes that she beats in sword fights.), but they are generally smaller, slower and weaker. Not just generally... but unlike pyschological differences, which tend to run about 60/40ish, but only 10% of women can throw a rock farther than the average dude.
Funnily enough too, you hear that you get away with everything, and get everything handed to you if you're attractive, but I've read that with regards to crime and punishment, this is true with respect to every crime except for fraud, in which the uglier one is given the less harsh punishment. Presumably people think that if a hot person did it, they probably manipulated people with their hottness, which is bad, but if the less attractive implies the more cunning, and cunning is laudable.
You do realise you are talking a whole heap of bullshit, right?
They do, but the awkward thing is that men are playing games thinking women are playing along with them when no one is collecting $200 if they pass go. No one. *tragic music instrumental
That's quite a persuasive thing you said for me, and not a dismissive thing you said for you. That info comes from a TED talk, and seems to jive well with my experience. I'll try to find it.
Quoting Wosret
This really is a :-| moment.
https://www.ted.com/talks/ben_ambridge_10_myths_about_psychology_debunked#t-59799
Here it is, and he actually says that the average dude can throw a ball further than 98% of women... so...
Yeah, I'm just not very good. A bad person really.
Funnily enough in the Eastern European countries, there is actually a problem with sexism (very frequently women are treated solely as sexual objects) - but in Western Europe, there is the opposite problem - too much political correctness with regards to male/female differences to the point that you cannot even mention them because you're labelled a sexist. So it seems that there is a problem everywhere :s - we cannot achieve the right balance.
Which is why the sexiest virtue, is definitely justness.
edit* I meant sexiest, and not sexist.
I don't care about the fact that men are biologically stronger then women, we all know that already, but It is the implication on psychological differences that apparently run 60/40 that is disturbing. To say men are better at philosophy or politics is unjustifiable and is no different to the days of profound racism that implied particular races as lacking the anatomy to be rendered equal with other races. Ok, so a man can throw a ball farther than a woman. AND? What's your point?
The point was that we have to use the tools available to us in order to succeed, protect ourselves, and conflict. This was what the Zeus example was meant to illustrate. It's not virtuous, it is stupid to attempt to use a strategy that will fail on its own merits, though perhaps succeed by serendipity.
Without full on repression, and resignation, emotions will find expression, even if they must incubate awhile.
For a start, I don't think that is funny. Secondly, this is much more of a terrible reality where sexual exploitation and trans-border trafficking of women is at epidemic proportions. But, the prevalence of such a tragic human disaster is irrelevant considering men can throw a ball father than a woman. Why? It is sexual exploitation, men who are sexually exploiting women and we are talking in the millions. How about we focus on that?
Does it feel inauthentic to be nice to people? It kind of does for me too, I actually prefer disagreeableness most of the time, though kindness doesn't always feel inauthentic either.
You'll need a good sized team to force me underground though.
You two need to stop talking about men so much. It hurts the site's Bechdel value.
It is absolutely hilarious how society swings from one extreme to another, yes. I often find myself battling on the one hand with the real sexists among my countrymen, or with the PC crazed lunatics from outside.
Quoting TimeLine
That is true, there is, unfortunately, a segment of the population affected by such conditions...
Quoting TimeLine
It's not irrelevant, I'm just pointing out that society can disintegrate in two different directions, and they are both evil. One has to strike a balance.
Quoting TimeLine
Sure, that is one of the problems we should focus on, though not the only one. We have to keep things in perspective, otherwise, we'll always solve one problem and create another 10.
And actually, about focus, it is you who is focusing and fussing about certain biological differences between men and women as if that was the end of the world. Not me.
Quoting TimeLine
No we don't - ask StreetlightX >:O
And actually, it is incorrect to state that men are biologically stronger than women without qualifying that statement, because in terms of resistance to disease, old age, etc. it seems that women are stronger. But see, the difference between me and someone like StreelightX is that I can say that nicely to you without saying you're an internalized sexist - other people, on the other hand, would think you're disgusting for saying something like that and would morally condemn you.
Quoting TimeLine
I'm not sure Wosret said that, or whether that's true or not. But why is it a problem if there are psychological differences between men and women?
I think there certainly must be, just like there are biological differences between the races for that matter. Black athletes are known to be faster runners at the very top of their field, in comparison with whites or other races. Whites are known to have much higher skin cancer rates than all other races.
etc.
Although having said that, there's usually very little to discuss with such people because they're not open to reconsidering their opinions, since their opinions are entrenched in the ways they live out in society.
For example, I took a cab driver a couple of weeks ago, and he asked me: "Do you know what the most difficult surgery is?" and I said no. So then he went on... "really? You don't? Do you want me to tell you?" and I was like "umm sure, why not?" and he said "The most difficult surgery, son, is to take the penis out of the woman's mind".
So there's lots of stuff like that in the whole ex-Soviet block, and it's incorporated in jokes and in the very ways people live and interact with each other. It's very difficult to see how it can be changed, because if you argue with these people, they think you're stuck up and they're just joking, so they don't change. And it's even built in the way women behave and live their lives so it's difficult from both sides, in the sense that many women expect men to behave that way.
But then it depends, because even here there's places and places, and people and people. I found that amongst some of the religious there are much fewer sexist behaviours of such a type, and more cooperative interactions amongst the sexes.
You know, black people are the only racial demographic that don't believe that black people are generally more athletic than other races.
There is no real, "racial" genetics, as there is genetic flow, and there is interbreeding, and only groups where there is no such flow, and thus just degrees of relation more for every individual, than regions or groups themselves. Like, some humans aren't more closely related to chimps than others, I don't think. Even Neanderthals, there was flow into our species, so that having like between 1-4% dna from them, is different than the precise same amounts that we share with all common ancestors. As exactly how common of an ancestor differs among individuals, rather than the species as a whole.
That said, you know that men and women are technically closer genetic relations to chimps of the same sex, than members of their own species of the opposite sex. On account of the chromosome difference.
Such trends are causally the product of a continuously changing society and particularly where there is a legacy of structural abuse, the reaction against the experience of such entrenched subjugation and any post-related extremities is understandable; the shift between two extremes until a norm is found takes time, it is a varying process depending on a number of social and cultural factors. Similar radical trajectories are found in other post- environments, i.e. the political domain in post-colonial Africa. I get what you are saying, but pulling your focus away from the genuine problem - the real problems against women - is a logical error and the sexists of your countrymen should be your only focus; there needn't be any guilt by association just because of those who react differently to their experience of this problem.
Quoting Agustino
It is a biological fact that muscle mass in men differ to that in women, the latter requiring more fat in their body. I am not speaking of 'strong' in the evolutionary sense, I am talking just about physical strong - throwing a ball farther. That is all.
Quoting Agustino
There is no such thing as race.
Sometimes, when people scream or speak over others, what they are actually trying to do is tell the other person 'listen to me' or 'I want to be heard' and this is precisely why you have those extreme PC cases as you mention as those women who protest topless with placards (as a reactive way to these deeply entrenched beliefs) is used to shock change, because any real change requires negotiation and time and sometimes the time for this is just too long that there is a fear that it will simply fizzle into oblivion. Non-violent resistance comes in many forms and depends on a number of factors; history of this subjugation, religion, culture, politics etc., but the intent is all the same and while I personally believe that change takes time and so would never behave in such a way, I still respect them nonetheless.
When I look at my society and see everyone doing the same thing and thinking the same way, I realised that those that dress themselves very differently and tell everyone to go fuck themselves are protesting and while they may be social outcasts, they are resisting the mob mentality, the mindless drones that follow the herd and so they should be praised. I may not be that way, but I will still respect them nonetheless.
Quoting Agustino
This is projection. He is shifting his thoughts and blaming the woman for having the problem he has.
Quoting Agustino
Most people would resist this statement, but you are absolutely right and there a many women who are unconsciously protecting themselves by submitting and behaving in ways that will ensure their safety because subjugation is a form of psychological violence. They are reared from an early age to believe that they are worth nothing more than their appearances and if their environment or culture all believe in the same value, then it must be true.
It's not necessary if people on both sides realise it's futile and stupid.
Quoting TimeLine
No, you are obsessed that only sexism directed against women is a genuine problem, probably because you're trying to get to the very best structure of society for yourself, without regard for anything else. This kind of blind focus leads to further systematic oppression and problems, including political correctness. In my blunt opinion, you are just driven by deep-seated fear.
You're just now trying to subjugate my powers to fulfil your single-minded mission by insinuating that I am not focusing single-mindedly on this problem and therefore I am morally failing. Nope. That is one of society's problems which must be considered along with all the others.
Quoting TimeLine
:-} like there's no such thing as gender? :B
Quoting TimeLine
This is just postmodernist pseudo BS. Just because they want to be heard and listened to isn't a license to resort to the most degrading means possible. That's no more retarded than the US invading Iraq because they "may" have weapons of mass destruction and thus if they don't do it, then it may be too late. That's a very stupid way to go about things. Acting in the wrong direction, whether that direction is right or left, can be equally wrong. As such, their oppression does not justify such behaviour.
Quoting TimeLine
No, it's not necessarily projection, it's just sexist and degrading to women because not all women are like that. Not all women are nymphomaniacs, just like not all men are obsessed with sex.
Quoting TimeLine
No, they're not just defending themselves, they are asserting themselves within a social structure by behaving in this way. Behaving that way gives them a certain degree of power over others, so they're by no means as innocent as you would want to portray them.
You keep portraying things in black and white, which makes it difficult to discuss this scientifically.
Quoting TimeLine
Yes and no - I wouldn't say that belief is as prevalent as you seem to suggest. But it does happen. Also what people are worth, and what they get their enjoyment from can vary. Around here many women get their enjoyment from consumerism quite frankly, and if a guy doesn't buy the girl he likes what she wants, that's more than sufficient reason for her to breakup with him. Men are more powerful physically here, and in the most backwards places they can somewhat control women through force, but in the cities and more developed places it is often women, who are more adept at the social game, who control men.
Either way, relationships are most often not peaceful (not in terms of physical violence now, but just conflict), so let's leave it at that. And that comes from the attitudes of BOTH men and women.
You're no more special than anyone else, don't kid yourself.
Uh, are you being serious?
P1 There is life on Earth.
P2 Earth is made of dirt (works better in French, where it's literally Earth is made of earth)
P3 Some other planets must also be made of dirt.
C : Therefore, there must be life on other planets.
This was delivered with the utmost seriousness of a graying academic.
Do you know how to read? Moron.
Race is a social construct; the naive concept of select genetic markers evolved through shared biological, ethnic and cultural identities. There are no distinctions except for what we have created.
Uh. Are you? Race denial is pretty freaking common nowadays.
What a stupid response. No, i'm not, that is just a pathetic exposure of the person that you really are. It is like me saying that you are obsessed with sexism because you refuse to have sex with women.
Quoting Agustino
Que?
Quoting Agustino
And then:
Quoting Agustino
Behaving in WHAT way? You are generalising women into this BS category and then saying "I want to discuss things scientifically".
Quoting Agustino
Yeah, shove your emoticons where it hurts.
Quoting Agustino
According to who? They have EVERY right to protest however they want, even if it means being topless, because that is how they choose to express their frustrations and you have no right to accord civility in the way they address sexism. And then you say:
Quoting Agustino
Me or you?
But it isn't. There is a socially constructed concept of race in addition to a biological one, both of which are rather loose in meaning and thus often unhelpful I would agree, but to say that there is no biological concept of race is simply false. Morphological features vary among human beings, and morphological features have a basis in biology. People don't create them, they are born with them. Do they matter much? Not really, which is why racism, in the sense of treating certain people differently on the basis of their phenotypical features is wrong, irrational, and unscientific.
The inherent biological markers based on ancestry is caused by the environment in which our ancestors lived. Our skin or hair colour does not belong to a particular "race" as all people with blonde hair do not have the same genetics but rather their DNA is based on the environment in which their ancestors lived. "Race" is socially constructed, a way to categorise humans but the only real difference is environmental and it has no effect on anything other than enabling features to adapt to the environment over time.
The idea of "race" is to classify humans into different hierarchical categories that only formulate distinctions to contrast false notions of beauty and intelligence (or superiority) that is actually non-existent. Any genetically homogeneous population is socially constructed; we are all one and the same.
You seem confused. We're not talking about different species. There is only one species called Homo sapiens.
Quoting TimeLine
Well, that's an older view long since repudiated by science. It doesn't exhaust the definition of the word.
Quoting TimeLine
Uh, no. Physical traits are not social constructs.
Quoting TimeLine
Yeah, but do you? >:O
Race as a category is useful for selection and breeding.
As those concepts are not applied to human reproduction (unless you are gross), there are no reason to distinguish between different human races.
There is. Certain races are statistically more prone to certain diseases than others, for example.
Here, read.
Race is then a heuristic concept ; it is because it is useful to refer to genetic predisposition that we refer to race. Better would be to simply denote the time and space which defines a higher probability of encountering the affected individuals.
Have you no comprehension of what environmental factors actually mean? Or are you just trying to fly in the face of evolutionary theory because it stands against your belief-structure?
Not much point arguing with someone like you. I learned that months ago! It's still amusing to read your posts, though.
I just basically told you. See here.
Quoting TimeLine
So, a few scientists don't like the word "race" and want to replace it with "ancestry" or "population." I really don't care. That's just rearranging the deck chairs. If the "white race" becomes the "white population," the same underlying concept appears to remain the same, i.e. that a certain segment of people from Europe share similar skin pigmentation, among other traits, which are not "socially constructed."
Quoting TimeLine
I don't know what you're trying to say here.
No, the problem is the social construct, the idea that "white" means something when it is solely environmental factors where DNA has adapted to the physical conditions of our environment as part of our survival. The socially constructed concept would give meaning to something like a 'white population' or a "race" and by extension purity or beauty or superiority based on physical factors because that is how we contrast ourselves from others. The scientific fact is that though we may share physical traits, there is no homogeneity in the genetics of those that appear the same and thus no scientific merit behind the concept of categorising people who look the same into the same category.
It is not that difficult.
Dirt is dirty. To be dirty is to be concerned with sex in a lewd or obscene way. Therefore, all planets made of dirt must be Hanover.
What you've just described is not a social construct but biological reality.
Quoting TimeLine
This is the socially constructed notion of race, yes.
Take a look at the syntax of your first sentence I quoted, as I think you've already ceded my point and are simply confusing yourself. In that sentence, the "idea" (what I termed the biological reality) has to refer to "the social construct" for it to make any grammatical sense, but I suspect you were actually trying to contrast the two.
So, are you saying that someone with more melanin is superior to you because you have to wear sunscreen?
Quoting Thorongil
What?
That you think "white" corresponds to a race, any more than "European", shows exactly why race should no longer be used as a concept.
To be usable, the concept of race would necessitate that we reduce what we normally accept as a race back to the categories accepted during the dark ages. Not "Caucasian", but Britons, Saxons and Franks. But then again, you'll quickly hit the wall that those categories were predicated on multiple values and that, for example, Britons were a lot more about who spoke Briton then about who had only Britons in their lineage.
Why on Earth would I say that? No, I'm not saying that.
Quoting TimeLine
What isn't clear?
When you say "a race" you clearly have some notion of what that is in mind. What is that notion? I am fairly certain it is not the one I am using.
And I don't care if the term is no longer used, as I already mentioned above. I'm talking about a certain concept that does have a biological basis.
This is ridiculous. Race, because this concept is a fuzzy amalgamation of different traits, is simply not a useful term in modern biology. If it is no longer being used, it is because it does not correspond very well to a biological reality.
Yes, but when you say that dirt is dirty, I have no way of knowing if you refer to the concept "dirt" or the individual "dirt". Frege was clearly not very dirty.
If it is not being used? You don't even know?
???
Perhaps something is lost in translation, but
" if (...), it is because (...) " is clearly a positive statement.
You are good at affecting indignation when you realize you have little else in way of arguments.
Well, I can't help you any more with your reading comprehension. If (...), that is (...) is not an hypothetical. It just states the cause.
But it doesn't make it true. Go back to philo 101, bud.
Indeed, the ambiguity of the term "race" is clearly confusing you and you seem caught in the historical use of the term based on phenotypic classification that was also coupled with models of desirable/undesirable features between these said "races" (i.e that skulls of Jews are smaller) hence the concept of superiority, beauty etc. While you may consider the use of other terms like "population" merely rearranging the same concept, the latter identifies solely the scientific and removes the embedded ideological notions that have become entrenched socially for centuries.
You are also failing to acknowledge that while there may be particular groups that share similar phenotypes, they do not share the same genetic structure and thus there is no common gene or cluster of genes within one phenotypic group.
So, I am white with freckles and someone else might be white with freckles, but genetically that has absolutely no relevance to any racial identification and would be an invalid designation that I belong under a particular genetic category. That is so simple and so logical that I am concerned why you are having trouble getting that.
Jesus fracking Christ, the hell is with you?
This is the use I'm refering to:" If membership criteria are now to be watered down, because it is considered politically important, it is difficult to imagine how the public "
-https://www.linguee.fr/francais-anglais/traduction/si+c%27est+le+cas,+c%27est+parce+que.html
5th case exemple.
It's an accepted form of making a positive statement. It does not state an hypothetical. And no, it doesn't prove the fact, because statements don't prove themselves in natural language, that's fucking philo 101.
Woah, woah, woah mommy, I have been exposed :’( - time now to pretend I don't know what's happening and accuse the other of projection. Whatever negative thing is said about me is ALWAYS a projection - only when I say negative things (which is most of my messages), then it never is a projection :D :D :D :D :D
Quoting TimeLine
X-)
Quoting TimeLine
In the way you were describing in your quote. And no, I'm not generalising when I talk about a particular group of women in a particular geographic region.
Quoting TimeLine
I won't reply to you anymore unless you show evidence you have learned to be polite and civilised.
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
According to who? >:O
Quoting TimeLine
No, this is a misunderstanding. They have no such right, nor will I ever respect and recognise this so-called right to destroy cultural values and public decency because of their selfishness and lack of self-control. If anything, such behaviour should be punished according to the law, until they learn to protest in a decent way as civilised human beings. If you cannot behave in a civilised manner, I don't see why others ought to behave in a civilised manner to you.
Unfortunately, feminism has degraded from the left, which was a very necessary movement, to the right image, which is totally unnecessary and is part of the dissolution of Western culture that we're noticing today. A dissolution that Russia and other global political actors are interested to spread in order to throw Western nations in civil war and internal strife.
This post's underlying narrative is that slut shaming is fine and should not be thematized as a gender issue.
If that dissolve Western culture (which it won't) then it didn't deserve to remain.
I think the claim is that the morphological variations in humans are not extreme enough to warrant an additional taxonomic rank (below that of sub-species), which is what a biological race would be.
It's not because of selfishness or lack of self-control. It's a protest to address injustice.
And sometimes the cultural values are wrong, and need to be "destroyed". That's how progress is made. We don't live in Victorian England anymore.
Yes, one can protest to address injustice in just and unjust ways. If you protest in unjust ways, which multiply the harm and negative effects done to society, then you are selfish and lack self-control.
And being topless isn't unjust.
Yes it is.
Quoting Agustino
What is unjust about not wearing a top?
And breeding of further conflict.
Again, sometimes cultural values are wrong. Social progress is a thing.
Exactly. And on top of that, the markers that we used to identify "race" in humans do not have in any way the same level of consistency that we find in the races of other species. Because "race" is inherently tied to the idea of breeding, and we don't apply a strict as rules for human mating as we do with breedings.
Right, not being naked in public isn't a wrong cultural value.
Won't you think of the children?
We don't progress when we become like the savages from the jungle who go around naked and have no respect for public decency.
What's indecent about being topless?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
Because only savages go around naked, that's why. It's part of a civilised society to respect public decency.
Jesus bloody Joseph, you are no fun at all.
Being topless is indecent because only savages go around naked? That seems like a non sequitur.
No, it's just the truth. You lack a sense for public decency and morality, so you cannot see it. It seems you don't even understand what decency is.
Literally the only good thing about that shitty Province.
And whatever bad can be (correctly) said about Ontarians, they aren't savages. More like the most boring hicks ever.
I don't lack a sense for public decency and morality. I just disagree with your claims about what counts as decent and moral.
But, of course, that's always going to be the case given that your moral values stem from believing that a book written 2,000 years ago are the words of a god.
>:O No, you cannot even define what decency is.
For example, look at this:
You don't see many Christians protesting against this dissolution of values in the West, we accept all kinds of bullshit, which tear our communities apart. That's why we're on the brink of collapse because we permit this.
Destroying the values that bind people together is the single most damaging thing that can be done to a group.
Practically what defines the West is its progressiveness and diversity in terms of values. That's exceptional and on the whole a good thing. So, the type of reactionary rigidity you espouse is actually antithetical to what we stand for as a cultural mix and presenting yourself as a defender of our common values isn't credible.
No, what defines the West is adherence to Christian values, which include tolerance and diversity, within certain boundaries. So by all means your enshrining of tolerance above everything else isn't Western, at least not historically so.
But for the fact that men and women navigate this awkward maze every day and form meaningful relationships keep the situation from being tragic.
What you mean to say is that you personally are challenged in the relationship arena despite your successes in most other areas, and you find that frustrating. And so you resort to seeking direction from me, which is the most reasonable approach.
Tim Wu
The New Yorker
Jan 2014
I guess this sort of mind-augmentation is also a kind of body-augmentation.
So, causally, this is the root of my problems. I am too selective. I assumed that you were meant to first get to know a person in order to understand the games that they play since the intent behind those games are entirely sexual, which requires permission that I am clearly not ready to give to someone who I am not friends with. It is not that I am averse to the games and I know how to play them very well in as much as I am capable of being romantic, but given the fact that such game-playing insults my intelligence as I know what they are trying to say and I don't want them to say it because I don't know them, is actually leading to this tragedy. Great. It is my fault that I am profoundly attracted to men who have an honest confidence and friendliness and don't resort to pithy behavioural displays with a woman they do not even know.
The game playing, sir, comes afterwards, it is a choice.
:( Mommy? What the fandangle?
Quoting Agustino
You see, from your previous conversations on here particularly with streetlightX, you found a way to adapt and pretend that you were in support of women' rights, but you are not, and you were only using that as a strategy that you adopted following these conversations so that you can manoeuvre your way around any potential antagonism to your opinion, your real opinion, which is that you are actually against feminism.
I am going to say this one more time and see if it can penetrate that thick and dense layer of ego to reach reason, but who are you to enforce cultural values to anyone?
Quoting TimeLine
Who are you to assert that Agustino doesn't want women's rights? Talk about ego.
So I'm no longer at a certain level of disturbing that requires you to step away from laptop? :D Edits can do magic.
Quoting TimeLine
The Great Agu, obviously 8-)
Quoting TimeLine
>:O >:O >:O - and supposing you were right, if I manoeuvre my way around any potential antagonism, what do I achieve? :s Clearly such a stratagem should have a great and worthy goal, otherwise why bother?
Quoting TimeLine
Well it failed. Have another go :D
Worry less about lady's perky parts
:-O :-O :-O :-O :-O :-O :-O :-O :-O
Then he tells me that America is the most racist country in the world. Okay remember he is 18 but I get his point. He is considering this seriously as an 18 yr old can. He is checking to see if his skill set is desired in NZ and I have a feeling it is but what am I supposed to do?
I feel doubly sorry for Native Americans. Reason being is that they are very gentle spirits and kind and warm and giving, which makes them prone to being exploited by less than honorable spirits.
He is right about America being a land full of racism, and he is probably the best person to speak about it in general, due to the history of Native Americans.
You are so sweet Posty McPostface and very understanding of those who are shunned by racism and it is prevalent here in the USA for sure. I just want you to know that I call my boys my "Indians" just because a decade ago I did not want to disclose too much about their ages or gender but they are Italian/Bohemian/Hungarian/Lithuanian and a bit of Norwegian. They are the privileged Caucasians of the Millennial Generation and are handing themselves with grace and dignity.
Caricaturing natives doesn't really help them.
I mean, I get that you mean truly well.
Definitely did not mean to caricature. Sorry if it came off that way.
How are you doing?
No apologies needed, its obvious you did not intend anything else but well. ;)
Uhh, alright. Can't complain about anything apart from still being unsure about going back to college. There's still that lingering doubt hanging around about whether I should go back or do nothing. Doing nothing doesn't really sound fun, and there's only so much I can ask from my mom.
I think I might go back to my old college (UCSC) for Spring 2018, and pursue a degree in the only thing that I can stand doing, and do a lot, in my free time, meaning philosophy. I'm not a math guy and all; but, staying on disability and not being able to keep more than 2k in my bank account kinda leaves me with few options than to go back to college and finish a degree or stay there as long as possible while on disability.
I'm not angry with myself; but, this is what I get for not wanting to do anything in life. Everything seems ready, all I need is to get the skittish wheels on the road.
Reminds me of this.
Enlightenment values, the foundation of what we know as the West today, are as much anti-Christian as Christian, which is why we thankfully have the separation of Church and State, something that theocratic cultures, the cultural uniformity of which you seem to so admire, never got around to. And you can add the emphasis on reason as opposed to tradition, and on scientific progress, to that - gifts we managed to give ourselves in the face of often massive resistance from the Christian hierarchy. So, what's left of your "Christian values"? Exactly what values are you referring to that are both uniquely Western and uniquely Christian that you think we adhere to so much that they "define us"?
Okay, I obviously didn't know as that's not part of the guidelines. And while it's obvious not to post something deleted by moderators, it's not so obvious not to post something edited out after it was ALREADY posted by a member. People should have a certain degree of self-control before they post, it is, after all, an online medium, and records of what they post remain.
Is it alright to mention them then, without posting them? I'm asking with regards to the future. I mean, I remember clearly when some people mentioned some of my deleted posts and there was no problem with that.
Yeah, thanks to Christianity.
Quoting Baden
Yeah, which is why science and reason was started by the priests. Christianity is one of the first religions to identify both Scripture and reason as valid ways of knowing.
Quoting Baden
:B
Isn't it Gen Z? :P
Don't quote deleted stuff. You're smart enough to know why. And I don't exactly know what you mean by "mentioning" them or what you're referring to regarding your own posts.
Reason vs tradition (I said "opposed to" deliberately) not "reason" as part of tradition. When those two came into conflict the church fought tooth and nail against reason. Do I really need to go into examples?
Quoting Agustino
I'm surprised, putting it mildly, that anyone would make such an obviously false claim on, of all places, a philosophy forum.
Quoting Agustino
Just name of few of these uniquely Christian / Western values. They define us according to you, so what's the difficulty?
So and so said that so and so. That's paraphrasing what they said, not quoting them exactly. Although it again depends. If someone posted their letter to their grandmother by accident on here, it would be dishonorable at least to bring it up. But if someone posts an insult?
Quoting Baden
There were times when people brought up some of my posts (not word for word, but they menitoned them) that had been deleted by the mods back then, and there seemed to be no problem with that.
Quoting Baden
Then who was responsible for scientific progress after Christianity was already dominant as a worldview in the West? It was largely the religious community.
That's a lie. For example, Galileo fought against reason, and the Church fought for reason. It was the former who insisted that a new instrument he had invented himself could see the motions of the planets more accurately than otherwise, and it was him who insisted that the sun really is at the center, based on those measurements, and not merely a hypothesis.
And this is admitted even by hardcore atheists like Paul Feyerabend.
Not here in the UK.
A degree of self-control pretty is difficult with you, but I guess I should have remembered that you were unfortunately born without a personality. My bad.
Nevertheless! Now you appear to be ranting about Christianity when the topic was about why you think feminists must not behave like "savages" and your answer to who are you to enforce cultural values to anyone was:
Quoting Agustino
The next thing you know it will be about the evils of legalising gay marriage because it is just so un-Christian. What cave do you live in, by the way?
One on Mount Sinai.
Your statement was obviously false. Priests did not "start" reason and science. And you know that presumably, so it's a very odd claim. As for who was most responsible for scientific progress, the answer is scientists.
But back to this:
Quoting Baden
Can you answer the question? Apart from one vague reference to "tolerance and diversity within certain limits" (values more easily claimed by secularism anyway) you haven't mentioned any. Go ahead.
Quoting Michael
Not officially, but effectively in most spheres.
Quoting Agustino
If someone posts an insult and then deletes it then I would consider that a retraction and forget about it. It depends on context but definitely do not quote deleted posts.
They were both employing reason. But it's as I was saying: The church employed their version of reason to protect tradition. When reason contradicted tradition, they fought against it. Or are you really trying to argue that the church was sanguine about its traditions being dismantled in the name of scientific progress? If so, you are missing something fundamental in the nature of religious institutions. It's called "self preservation". Scientific knowledge is naturally mutable and disruptive, and so progressive, hence the term scientific progress. Religious knowledge and the institutions in which that knowledge are inhered tend towards stasis and conservatism. The fact that priests tended to be educated and literate for reasons to do with their social role and that therefore they were in a position to contribute to scientific progress does not negate the fundamental oppositions between the two spheres that have played themselves out continually over the past couple of millennia.
Steady your wheels, center yourself and start merging back onto the highway of life. We will make room for you~
1996 Millennial - 21 yrs old today What generation Am I if I was born in 1996?
Other names for this group are the Millennials, the Internet Generation, and the abbreviated Gen Y or Gen Yers.
1999 Millennial - 18 yrs old today What generation Am I if I was born in 1999?
Millennials (also known as the Millennial Generation or Generation Y) are the demographic cohort following Generation X. There are no precise dates when the generation starts and ends; most researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to the early 2000s.
Maybe Gen X, Gen Y or logically following Gen Z
What do you mean by "Western endowment"?
And we are still living and creating our legacy daily.
Hmmm...
They are more accurately Gen Z, however most go by millenials today. Millenials include people born in the 1980s too.
We could call them youngsters or whipper snappers.
Oh yeah, I'm talking 'bout Christianity cause that's what other people were talking about, you know, the world doesn't revolve around TimeLine and her concerns only, sorry to tell you. I know you want the whole world, including all men, to be thinking of you, but unfortunately, that's not how things work.
Quoting TimeLine
I don't want you to visit me please. I have no time for narcissistic loud-mouthed people who lack self-control and are purely self-interested.
Right, perhaps the wrong word choice.
Quoting Baden
And who were the scientists? You know Newton for example was a very religious man, as were MOST of the important scientists through history. Today most professional scientists lean towards atheism, that's true, but this wasn't the case historically. In fact, they saw their scientific work as devotion to God.
Quoting Baden
That's not the testament of history.
Quoting Baden
No, I obviously think the question doesn't merit too many words. Literarily everything good of modernity was taken from Christianity. The equality of all before God, separation of church and state, the relevance and importance of knowledge and learning, a GLOBAL society (many fail to realise that the Revelation is the first time when religion wasn't constrained to one people's but became a global phenomenon, meant for the whole world - global brotherhood between all men regardless of color, race, intelligence, etc.), non-violent resolution of conflicts, etc.
Almost everyone was religious at that time. That doesn't credit religion for their accomplishments (genetic fallacy).
Quoting Agustino
OK, then you would claim that literally nothing in modernity that was not taken from Christianity can be good. Correct?
By and large - literarily everything was hyperbole.
Quoting Baden
:-} - no, I wasn't speaking about just vocally giving lip service to religion, I was saying that they were authentically religious and devoted to religion.
And I'm saying that even if they were authentically religious (as if you could know that for sure) that crediting religion for their scientific accomplishments is an example of the genetic fallacy.
Quoting Agustino
So what is it according to you? I may have missed where you defined it.
I think I've met someone I like. His name is Agustino, although he prefers to go by the ironic moniker, "The Great Agu".
He's adorable, but hopelessly mistaken about almost everything. Opposites attract, as they say. I think that there's a spark between us. He laughs at my jokes, and has a devilish side to him, despite all his talk of aspiring to be a good little Christian.
I secretly desire that he and I run wildly through fields of wheat, topless and holding hands. But don't worry, Grandma, we won't do anything too untoward until after we're married.
P.S. I have considered your request to be let out of the basement. Your request is denied. You should have thought about that before you dared to cross me when I was five years-old by presuming that you had the authority to dictate to me when to tidy my room.
Sincerely,
Sapientia
Yes, a man like Newton who devoted years to investigating the Number of the Beast and similar matters was certainly very much devoted and interested in religion.
Quoting Baden
Yeah, just like you crediting secularism with whatever you've credited it with :-}
The fact of the matter is that these people did see themselves as doing science as a duty and service to God. That's why they were engaged in science, to begin with. Do you deny that?
I will not quote that.
Quoting Agustino
"Savage" can be represented in many ways and it is you that is savage. You say that I think the world revolves around me, but it is you who is attempting to enforce your Christian values onto everyone assuming that you are somehow morally superior as narcissists do and then have the audacity to project your madness by stating:
Quoting Agustino
You are epic in your fallacious and innocuous thinking that lacks common sense and whether you are doing this on purpose or not, it is impossible to beat an ignorant man in argument.
I am a woman and would be wrong no matter what I say or do and no matter what I say or do I will always be wanting all men to be thinking of me according to you, which is no different to your cab driver. You are a liar, nothing more.
Other people can be patient with your bullshit and joke about it, but you are an ugly person.
Well, I freely admit to wanting to impose the values of my civilisation on people who want to live in it - because it is what holds us together, AND because I think they're the right values, by and large. If they don't like the values of Western society, which are based upon our Judaeo-Christian tradition, then they should move to a different place - or respect those values even if they disagree with them - or critique those values based on their internal coherence all the while respecting them until they can be changed.
And you can be an atheist and still respect Judaeo-Christian values for example. You can still be tolerant, decent, polite, moral, etc. Those values really have to do with how you act, not what you profess to believe, because, as it has already been said, tolerance within limits and forgiveness of repentant sinners is part of the essence of Christianity.
But going with your breasts entirely NAKED out in the street, is, like Muhammad Ali said, what savages do - not what civilised people do. Like it or not, there are some standards in society. If you don't respect them, that means that you don't want to be part of that society.
Quoting TimeLine
Right, as if I ever said that :-d
Quoting TimeLine
:-! Oh dear, the irony...
Quoting TimeLine
Okay fine. Why do you think I care what you think about me? :s I will answer before God, not before you. I actually find it a bit hilarious that you think I'm an ugly person to tell you the truth.
And by the way, I've met manipulators like you many times. You're all two a dime, I'm not scared of you or what you think of me. You may get a head start over me, because typically people believe you at first, cause you always play the victim, but over time they start to realise who you really are, and also who I really am. Then they can make up their own minds.
Why do you think people don't take you seriously anymore?
It is true that men want to have sex, but it is untrue they all only want to have sex. Men desperately want to be in relationships, and to the extent you believe otherwise, you are a knower of nothing.
There are certainly intentional game players who plot and scheme, but the majority of games are borne out of insecurity. If you delay in response to a text or feign disinterest, that could be that you learned at some point that you are to be the mouse and he the cat and you insist that game be played. More than likely though, you simply wish to keep your emotions close to your vest and not declare too clearly that you are really interested in him because that would make you terribly vulnerable and subject to being taken advantage of or being hurt. Do you not profess your undying love for him because you want to leave him guessing, or is it because you fear he won't reciprocate or, even worse, that he will pretend to reciprocate so that he can take whatever it is that he wants from you? The point being that what you call a game is just a sincere and genuine maneuver to promote the relationship but also to protect against being hurt, embarrassed, or feeling stupid.
I get that you want to be friends before being in an intimate relationship, but "friendship" is subject to definition, and I don't believe most people start out platonically and end up sexual, but that they start out with some sort of sexual chemistry, continue through to getting to know each other, and, if all moves forward, eventually to sexually. So, yeah, I agree, you should like before you love, but the like I have for a prospective girlfriend is a whole different sort of like than I have for my guy friends.
I'd hate to think these are pearls before swine, so please pay close attention to the wisdom I impart.
There is actually a debatable issue here beneath all the back and forth sanctimony.
Should we concede that women are being discriminated against and should we concede they have the right to protest, we need not concede there are no limits to the form of the protest they can make. We can concede that holding up signs is acceptable, and we can concede that lying on the street naked with one's ankles behind one's ears is not acceptable, thus making the points in between subject to debate. That is, I'm not so comfortable having bare-chested women with the word "slut" written across their bodies parading in the town square, and I think I can say this without being sexist and without being a religious rightwing nut job. A remedy can be worse than the wrong it seeks to cure. There's no justification in curing the cancer but killing the patient.
I say all this fully believing that Agu is small minded, short sighted, disrespectful, and not worth debating.
We are on a philosophy forum. How ridiculous are you with your moral superiority and delusions of grandeur and how ridiculous that you should think being sexist enough to have the capacity to say:
Quoting Agustino
All because I asked to you explain why you think you have the right to enforce your cultural values onto anyone? This is you being sexist and thinking that somehow you have a right to say that and this:
Quoting Agustino
If you want to freely impose the "values of my civilisation on people who want to live in it - because it is what holds us together" at least say those values are what holds your community together as there is no 'us' here. These women are protesting the creation of the 'Other' and in this case the Other are women because any woman who does not appear to the standards you expect must be bad, wrong, evil, even if they are not. They protest naked because they are a body, a sexual object and forced into a category where no rights or thoughts or opinions of their own are allowed. They are sluts by default.
I am done with you. There is no possible way of having a conversation with you.
No, it would be above it. Species > race > subspecies. I agree, though, that it's now a mostly useless term. I wish people stopped talking about it, as Morgan Freeman says:
It's funny, as I remember posting this before, and in the Shoutbox too, I believe. Round and round we go on these issues, alas.
Quoting TimeLine
That's not historical. That's the normative definition right now. When MLK said that we should judge people by their characters, not the color of their skin, he was saying that a person's race, biologically speaking, amounts to nothing more than a set of rather meaningless physical attributes. There's nothing more to it than that. Whatever else people think race is must therefore be socially constructed.
Quoting TimeLine
No, you've merely tacked this on. This meaning has been rejected both culturally or scientifically.
Quoting TimeLine
Who said anything about genetics? Again, you're trying to knock down a definition of race that has already been repudiated.
This is the Shoutbox :s - you go horsing around with [s]Sean Hannity[/s] Hanover all the time around here, why can't I have a less serious discussion here with people than on the rest of the forums? Time to wake up to reality.
The rest of your post is empty drivel and not worth my time addressing all those lies and slander. Believe what you want.
Not to mention that you cannot even put together a logical train of thought, judging solely from the above. No doubt that now you'll go on hysterically about how it is that it's because you're a woman that you cannot put together a logical train of thought and other such bullshit that I've never suggested... :-d
You really are one of a kind, I have to tell you. Hopefully you at least believe your own lies.
But don't worry, in a little while you'll send me a PM apologising, as you often do... It would be better if that moral consciousness (oh dear, I'm starting to sound like you :-! ) of yours could get you to behave decently and in a civilised manner from the beginning rather than going around and apologising after the fact all the time.
Nudity as a form of protest is an expression characterised in a highly sexualised format for a reason as it is aesthetically intended to highlight oppression and why bodies are often decorated with horrendous words like "sluts" or bruises and scars. It is an accessible form of protest to explain their plight and indeed as I had already stated after being forced to deal with one ridiculous post after the next that attempted to shadow this argument by consistently attacking me, is that I too would never protest in such a manner but I am not against it. Just as much as I am not against a person who may dress or wear clothes differently as a protest to social "fashion" and appearances.
Power has always been over a person' body, whether it is the right to have sex with who you want, to have a child, or even any control of your movements and choices and such protest is revealing this conflict together with the objectification of the female body. Millions upon millions of women are raped, sold into sexual exploitation, and experience domestic violence where so many are killed by an intimate partner and so comparatively the protest itself makes sense. What they are trying to do is de-sexualise their bodies.
I think we are in agreement but somehow are lost in the ambiguity of the definition. What do you think of this:
"Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits"
This biological essentialism (or determinism) is the primary impetus behind contributions to racism.
Matters of morality aren't matters of taste - nor are they like matters of taste for that matter.
Quoting TimeLine
Riiiiiiiight, therefore let's go with our breasts out around town, that's certainly a smart solution. Did that take a lot of thought to come up with?
Going with your breasts completely naked around town with the word "slut" written on you does nothing to reduce the number of raped women, women sold into sexual exploitation, or women experiencing domestic violence. So either you are irrational, or you're really doing that for other reasons. I suspect those other reasons involve rebelling for the sake of it, and seeking a way to feel powerful over other people, showing that you don't have to obey the standards that the rest of your society obeys - in other words, pure mockery. That's not admirable.
If you want to protest against the exploitation of women that's great, but please do it in a civilised manner that actually helps get something done.
We all know the reason. Its effectiveness as a means of instigating change is what matters, and I see no evidence that it does anything of the sort. Quite the contrary seems true: it likely turns more people off to their message. It certainly does me, honestly.
Quoting TimeLine
By sexualizing their bodies... Rule 34 and human nature dictate that there are people with an exhibitionism fetish who are getting off to such displays.
If they wanted to desexualize their bodies and help reduce the objectification of women, dressing modestly and recommending other women do the same would be the most logical means of action. Feminine modesty is almost a lost virtue and so profoundly counter-cultural, which would likely appeal to their type as well. In today's sexually saturated and "liberated" society, which has "feminists" defending things like pornography, prostitution, fornication, etc, I wonder if the objection to the word "slut" is in fact an apologia for and attempt at normalizing the behaviors that fall under that term; in other words, to have one's cake and eat it too. Women who dress provocatively but who would complain about being objectified by the male gaze are all too common now.
Obviously. So from this we can only conclude that what they're after really is something quite different.
Quoting Agustino
I didn't attack you. I'm not infused with self-righteous prudishness and couldn't care any less how you behave sexually. I'd think no more or less of you if protested naked. I can't shoulder the nonsense imparted upon you by other posters.Quoting TimeLineThis isn't responsive because it just tells me that terrible things happen and that it's proper to protest those terrible things. It doesn't offer any meaningful criteria for limiting the form of the protest other than saying that you personally don't find nudity so far from accepted norms that it should be considered a forbidden form of protest against really terrible things. My question is, should women be permitted to perform sadomasochistic sexual acts in the street to let us know that women are terribly mistreated or do you have some limit? If you do have some limit, you need to justify it and explain why my limit in not permitting topless female nudity is too limiting. And really, it's more than that. You need to explain why your limit is respectful of feminism and mine not and why it's not just a matter of personal preference what we're each allowing others to engage in.
You mean like Agustino? >:)
Of a certain kind, yes. It depends on what is said to be biologically determined. Race defined as skin color and other physical attributes is most definitely biologically determined. Race defined as a set of behaviors correlated with people who have a certain set of physical attributes is socially constructed, for the behaviors in question are not biologically determined. Scientific racism, to which you have repeatedly alluded, is the view that there is causation, not merely correlation, between the two. That notion has been thoroughly junked by science.
She'd go up in my estimation.
I think that we should all protest naked outside of Agustino's house.
I'd take pictures of you all and sell them, no worries 8-)
Ahh, see, you now learned about decency. That's good now :D
If Agustino said that "all black people are manipulative" I wonder what your reaction would have been. Indeed, sexism is entrenched.
In what part of my response was there any implication that I believed you were attacking me? Or, was that just a false dilemma?
Quoting Hanover
Why else would people protest?
Quoting Thorongil
The effectiveness of instigating any change through protest is very difficult to ascertain so I am uncertain as to how you have managed to conclude the 'contrary' unless you have some sort of control here and that would mean that you have evidence of the contrary. Would you care to elucidate? The reasoning behind these 'shock' tactics is methodical in attracting public attention even if the attention itself is negative as it subtly raises that there is an issue. Amina Tyler from Tunisia has certainly proved to be an instigator of this change.
Quoting Hanover
This is a valid question and I understand what you are referring to but women who do protest nude are still bound by the law and are/can be arrested or fined for indecent exposure or other legal standards depending on whether breasts or being topless is considered prohibitive. My position on protesting topless is the same - what the law dictates - but whether it is immoral or not vis-a-vis decency is questionable; a man and a woman having dry sex with clothes on in public is indecent because the act itself is motivated for a different reason.
Naked men in public with their johnsons gleaming proudly - men are rapists, arrest them!
But he didn't say that, and what he did say to me in the comment that I was replying to doesn't even come close.
Quoting TimeLine
I will resist the urge to let loose on you for that insidious little comment. Instead I will rise above it and move on.
Well, perhaps a larger part of the male population needs to learn how to express desire in a way that doesn't make girls want to gag?
Got any example of this double standard?
Do you have a legitimate issue that you could meaningfully engage by walking in the street naked? I mean, you mentioned MRA, so I could just assume that no, you don't.
Such a great sense of retort. Such a mind of unfathomable depth.
Truly, we philosophers are in good company here.
What makes me want to gag, as a male who views lust as a vice and something to be put under control, are women who frolic around with a feigned blissful unawareness that they are dressing in a manner designed explicitly to excite the male sexual impulse.
My evidence would be myself, my immediate family, my coworkers, and my intuition about the reaction of most other people in wider circles of association and acquaintance. The people who condone and cheer on such protests are in the minority. I have no hard data, though.
All black people are manipulative, but that's because all human beings are manipulative.
Better start stockpiling Gravol, or otherwise you'll drown in a sea of your own barf. Times, they are changing (in mini-skirts).
1. Women experience greater limitations in society than men realize. If offered the choice of gender, choosing male would offer you an easier life.
2. It is possible to be normal, healthy, and moral while expresssing your sexuality outside a marriage.
3. Rules regulating female sexuality are largely designed to relegate females to lesser and subservient roles than men.
4. Men are complex creatures, fully confused by women and desirious of much more from women than sex.
5. The women in my life drive me crazy and it's not fun except when it is and then it's real fun but Jesus I'm not sure the not fun outweighs the fun.
6. Timeline, a navel pic, please?
Really? Men pick up all the garbage, construct all the buildings, fix all the buildings, fight all the fires, mine all the coal, fight all the wars, live shorter lives, commit most of the suicides, etc. In short, they have the colossal burden of keeping civilization afloat without a word of thanks, most living lives of quiet desperation, and yet you have the gall to say that "women experience greater limitations in society." What society is that? Saudi Arabian society? Yeah, sure. But not in the West. Women in the West have been offered the choice, and they've most notably chosen not to do any of the things I just mentioned, exceptions notwithstanding.
Moreover, is it any wonder that when one hears the phrase "transgender person" one immediately thinks of a transgender woman? I don't know what the ratio of transgender men to women is, but I suspect there are far more of the latter than the former, which makes sense in light of the above.
reviews The New Politics of Sex: The Sexual Revolution, Civil Liberties, and The Growth of Governmental Power by Stephen Baskerville.
The book is, among other things, a discussion of the increasingly disadvantaged role of men. It's in today's issue of Quillette
Thing is, that "mate choice copying" is a thing. Having lived a sheltered life, you must have at least seen that episode of Seinfeld where George got a personal photo of a model from Jerry, and was using it at model parties saying it was his ex in order to attract women there.
Also why we have like Justin Bieber phenomena without any male version equivolant of that, despite males supposedly being the desiring, pursuing ones. Most guys want a lot more than sex from women, but are people like JB likely to?
It's also a better life. That's why orthodox Jewish men say that prayer thanking God they weren't born as women. Of course, if a Jewish man had been born as a woman, he would feel like he was born in the wrong body and would want to be returned to dickdom as soon as possible. I knew a secular Jewish woman who became a very orthodox man. He was much happier that way.
G. B. Shaw via Alan Jay Lerner.
Also, you know Seinfeld wasn't a documentary. (Though for silliness, there's nothing better. I also liked the episode where Elaine says to the woman looking for her "baybay" i.e., boyfriend, "Maybe the dingo ate yo baybay." )
But Elaine... just perfect.
apropos...how we all feel inside when we post here:
Oh yeah, cause Agustino said that "all women are manipulative", totally, suuuuuure - please do tell us what substance you're smoking there, it must be quite potent >:O >:O
You're getting to the level of ridiculous where all someone can do is laugh. Agustino said that YOU - TimeLine - are manipulative. Sorry to break this to you, but you aren't all women, not even close. But I do understand that your narcissistic personality probably causes you to identify yourself with all women.
And I get along very well with most women, even here. For example, I said an inappropriate thing to Tiff awhile ago (at any rate something that she didn't appreciate in that context), and she reprimanded me, so I removed that post when I realised it was inappropriate and apologised to her. Someone's gender doesn't concern me. You are manipulative not because you are a woman, but simply because that's how you behave. You seek to turn the whole environment into something that fits you perfectly, and you do so rapaciously, without concern for the needs of others. Your so-called moral consciousness is bunk - you display your (lack of) moral consciousness everytime you seek to eradicate everyone who disagrees with you by labelling them sexist, racist, etc. But "moral consciousness" is a useful political tool for you, that's all - everyone who TimeLine can boss around has moral consciousness, anyone who she can't boss around doesn't. That's all it is.
Quoting TimeLine
When Agustino says they should be punished according to the law that's sexism, but when TimeLine says the same thing, that's all fine, no problems there :B
I'm just sad no one noticed my brilliant Seinfeld post. :’(
Okay, my apologies.
I will be quite busy these next few days, and there's already a lot of replies I have to catch up with, so I won't reply here anymore probably.
Clearly, it just blew our collective minds beyond capability of response. :)
Thanks.
Let's make religion, sexism and racism off limits. Topics for discussion today are, the weather and this squirrel:
Christ, yes. (Y)
Nah, you blew your mind...that's the key...
That actually looks extremely chillaxable, despite the video editors attempts
Also, if you think squirrels are stupid, then you haven't watched the Rick & Morty show, which is a must if you want to survive squirrel world domination:
Im at work so really really look at it and reply but i noticed will will gets round to it.
The reason that men become women at higher rates than women becoming men has nothing at all to do with the man trying to gain societal power and the woman wishing to absolve herself of the burden of being female. It has to do with male sexuality and how it differs from female sexuality.
Framer was kind of a dick in real life, but a good character, that had some good moments. I think that Jerry and Elaine just got to play themselves, whereas most everyone else had to play characters.
He's not too bad.
Guess it would depends on how many nuts it has.
Also :"
-"We need to pick up a new pope in case the Exxon-Monsanto thing falls off"
-"Why not just use chemtrails?"
"
has got to be one of my favourite fiction line ever written.
What is this obsession we have in our culture of judging someone's art based on whether or not they we're some ideal form of a "good person"?
Well, when someone's art is being funny, and then everyone realize that your a crude idiot with not much in the way of a sense of humour...
...yes?
If your art is being funny, which is the case with Micheal Richard, and then everyone notices that the person is in reality very crude and unfunny, then it's hard not link the two.
Why is that hard? It's not hard for me; I don't get it. That's why I'm asking.
I guess, at least for me, it's because some art expresses character.
If the best a humorist can retort to "you ain't funny" is "go get lynched", then he's not that great of an artist, is he?
Again, that just reflects his personal morals (moral failure in this instance), and I don't see the direct connection between personal morals and artistic ability.
But Richards is of course an actor; he might have a stand up background, I don't actually know, but at any rate, he's specifically known for being an actor of comedy, not a writer of comedy. His art as a comedic actor is to make someone else's text hilarious, and he was always considered a great success at that job. So how does the fact that he made an egregious racist comment negate his previous success at comedically interpreting a script written by someone else? That's actually a complete non sequitur.
Richards is a screenwriter as well as an actor. The reason why that's not generally known is because he is a bad screenwriter. The Micheal RIchards Show was terrible and got cancelled immediatly. I guess Airheads got a bit of cult value, but that's like saying Paulie Shore's got cult value.
He's not that great of a comedian actor either. Kramer was loved. Otherwise, you got to choose between minor roles in Coneheads and So I married an axe murderer.
In any case, I've never found him to be funny, either as Kramer or as anything else. Seinfeld probably never made me laugh. I'd quite literally prefer to watch Sex and the City.
Lots of interesting pop culture info, and some info on your personal preferences. No issue there. But still no argument about the problem of the morality of artists vs. their art.
I'll take a provocative photo of my elbow if you take one of the back of your knee because we like to frolic around sexualising our bodies - rule 34 remember, exhibitionism fetish - whilst pretending to blissful awareness that our intent is designed explicitly to excite the male sexual impulse. And by male sexual impulse I mean @Baden because, well, let's admit it now shall we, all this is for him.
Quoting Hanover
Intentional games are borne from lies despite it being causally linked to insecurity and that, to me, is the problem. Such men can cheat on their partners or even worse can feign happiness with someone they probably can't stand because that is what they do, play games. Children that compulsively lie may be borne out of the fear of getting into trouble and we can sympathise because they probably have a domineering parent, but it doesn't make the act a good thing. I like the intentional sexual innuendos and believe it would be a natural part of a loving relationship, but it is supposed to come afterwards, when we want to move it to the next level. You need to be friends, man, get it already.
Anyway, the reason why I mention this is because I am on a long train ride home and my manager asked us to take a Myer Briggs test for a team exercise we'll be doing next week and while I found the notion of doing this irksome, I was thoroughly intrigued by the result. I am apparently an 'advocate' or INFJ and they are rare and you came to mind because under "relationships" it wrote the following, which perhaps explains me better than I have been:
You are such an INFJ >:O
Maybe. It just depends on how far you're willing to roll with the concepts of the entire MBTI scenario.
Probably shouldnt have said that. A good character and good show. Elaine is better though.
Nah, speak yer mind brohanaus. Elaine's your fav character tho??
>:O
I am INTJ, and I think it does fit.
Two of my best friends from my home town were supposedly INTJ's; one clearly so, and the other, not so clearly. You probably have a personality, it just takes a lot to coax it out. Self-discovery! Let's go!
I tested 3 times over the course of the last decade. Got INTJ twice then INTP.
I couldn't tell what it means. I guess I trust MBTI a bit further than any other personality test out there.
The categories seems to make sense.
I don't mind it; I liked it more some years ago in college when it seemed to be more significant. I still identify to some degree with mine; at worst, it certainly provides some sort of grid with which to map oneself if you're in need of such a grid.
I'm an INFP. Supposedly, I'm the same type of one of your favorites, : Kierkegaard...
https://www.personalityclub.com/blog/famous-intj/
Rand, Nietzsche...all your favorites!
And my clan...you can recognize us by how un-photogentic we are..
https://www.personalityclub.com/blog/famous-infp/
>:) lol
You have a lot of the literary and musical types :P
I seem to have more of the scientist / deep thinker types. INTJ is most prone to depression actually :-O
Hence my inherent, self-imposed deficiency here >:O
Quoting Agustino
According to who/what?
According to this:
http://oddlydevelopedtypes.com/INTJ
http://oddlydevelopedtypes.com/content/intj-stress
There.
I will take one at some point today and I'll have a reveal. I know you find this a delicious teaser.Quoting TimeLine
Your analysis is nothing short of delicious.
I'm an INTJ (for real), which, as you can imagine, is better than your piddly letters. Here's what it says about me.
"INTJs are deliciously sexual beings, each better endowed than the next. INFJs, while typically discriminating, will abandon all principle when confronted with an INTJ and will animalistically seek immediate pregnancy. Both ought be careful, as the potency of the INTJ baby batter is legendary, most often leading to large litters of well endowed delicious children.
An INTJ will seek a Baden due to his inherent wonderballs sassiness and will delight in his jazzy deliciousness. An INTJ has no time for the mundane relationship, but expects his lover to be tall and svelt with tight cropped hair and sport an Irish accent like a silly leprechan with a magical staff.
INTJs, while described typically in colorful terms overheard when homosexuals are shoe shopping with their BFFs that they just could not live without, also have a dark side stereotyped by drunken tragedies with blood soaked rags and spent whipped cream can strewn about on the floor and let's just say, someone will come up missing. "
It's uncanny how close this is to my life. I have goosebumps.
I read this and remembered back to this years Wounded Warrior Ride that GW Bush has at his ranch every year. They began years ago calling it PTSD and then dropped the D of Disorder because the feeling was that it limited the person with PTS to heal and grow with the PTS. Then this year I heard a new term PTG - Post Traumatic Growth and was excited to hear that it is possible for those suffering with PTS, to extrapolate the positive from what has always been viewed as a very negative experience. (L)
I'm confused now. Was this PM:
"Stay away from her or what I'll do to you will make Jeffrey Dahmer's skeleton blush."
a joke or not? :s
(Please put Jeffrey back by the way. It's just...uncouth.)
Fine, I'll get all my friends in a room and have sex with them. I'll wear an old school sweat band around my head so that I do get my head drippings on my friends. That'd be way rude.
As an aside, I was looking up the most offensive terms in the English language, and I came upon the Alabama Hot Pocket, an idea even more perverse than I could have arrived at. Take a look see. You'll be delighted.
1. I'm thankful for those who have died and whose abandoned wealth has benefitted me.
2. I'm thankful for those who have suffered silently to where I didn't have to hear them.
3. I'm thankful for those whose depression have left them homebound and out of my way.
4. I'm thankful for those who have left their loves ones and befriended me to fill the void in their lives.
5. I'm thankful for those whose homes have burned to the ground so that I could feel better about me not having a burned down house.
6. I'm thankful for those whose cars have become disabled and allowed me quicker access to work.
7. I'm thankful for those whose dogs have run away so that I could see cute dog pictures posted on telephone poles.
8. I'm thankful for those who have fallen to the ground because it's pretty funny watching people fall to the ground.
9. I'm thankful for the poor who make me feel good when I throw a can of food in a box for them to eat.
10. I'm thankful for the stupid people who do the jobs beneath me.
I miss people like Muhammad Ali or John D. Rockefeller...
Cranky what's with that bird?
And you @schopenhauer1?! Who is copying who here, and are you forming some kind of plot together?!
Lol, I was only thinking about the bloopers, and how serious, and aggressive he is, not liking others to break character, and Elaine broke character the most, laughing, and he's constantly insulting and feigning hitting her.
I forgot all about that racist stuff, lol. I wasn't making some moralizing judgment, more than was just thinking that I thought he was kind of a dick because of how he acted with Elaine in bloopers.
Yeah, she was the best. I never watched her new show where she's some politician though, I wonder if it is any good.
In order for us to lock-gazes, of course.
Sometimes my dog does that before attacking me :-O >:O
Oh, well the openness and dilation of the pupils tells when she is going to jump me, which she also frequently does, but she prefers a shoe lace.
Lets see the dog.
Not the same, c'mon.
Here we go. That's not my cat though, but I took the photo. The dog is mine - I think she can eat your cat >:)
I'm sure they'd get along. My cat is pretty charismatic.
Yah but my dog hates other animals lol :P
Did you have it from a young age, and with no other pets? Because it can be hard for them, if even possible to become close with other animals if they weren't introduced to them while still young enough.
Hmm, no I took her when she was a little older. She grew up with one other dog, her brother (I don't own him, he's with a family friend). But she doesn't tolerate other animals well (apart from her brother, obviously).
She's also not very disciplined and likes to attack even me :-O - I always have to wrestle with her.
Just like play bites, though, right, not like aggressive and serious?
He's self employed and can't afford new sneakers. Note that the dog has a new chew toy, however, and big teeth, the better to bite Agustino with.
She was looking at me funny.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Starting to feel more and more alienated.
Don't pass the pipe. I feel like it's laced with some shit the mods concocted.
Problem: Posty feels alienated.
Solution: Come to the dark side.
You're welcome.
Just to comment on that, I decided to return to college to pursue a degree in philosophy. Long road ahead; but, at least it's something I see myself doing with ease and modest pleasure.
Where is that? A flat somewhere in the communist part of England?
So you don't disagree.
Well not super hard bites, but she can bruise or leave scratch marks. No puncture wounds though.
Quoting Buxtebuddha
Quoting Bitter Crank
:-} Don't you rich Americans want to donate a little to the poorer areas of the world?
Looks like a cute demon. I'm more surprised by the gun-wielding Sappy who likes to come here and scream about US Second Amendment Rights >:)
Quoting Thorongil
>:O
Not to rain on your parade, but this is very much to be doubted. For one thing, will you have to take out student loans to complete the degree?
Yes, Federal loans to be exact.
That poor cat looks like it's living back 'Nam.
If you are ready to exile yourself and learn another language, you can add to your chances of making a life's work out of your philosophy studies. A few countries make it mandatory for college kids to take at least a certain number of philosophy classes (3 in Quebec, for example). That means those colleges needs about as many Philosophy teachers as they have French and English teachers.
Last I checked employement rating for graduates here was 80% within the year.
Unfortunately not. Not even close. Since the seat in parliament which represents my constituency was created in 1974, it has been held by a Conservative MP for approximately 75% of that time, remains to be held by a Conservative MP today, and has been held by that same Conservative MP for the last 7 years since 2010. That same percentage also represents the approximate share of votes in my constituency for Brexit in the EU referendum.
I'm surrounded by the enemy! :-O
Surprise! I'm secretly a gun nut, and have been playing a very long game of devil's advocate this whole time. I'm not even from England, I live in Texas.
(It's actually an air pistol, and I've mentioned it here before).
Yah, cause since 2010 it has been 17 years :B
Quoting Sapientia
>:O
Never said that. Don't know what you're talking about. :-*
What a sly creature >:) - but @Baden told me that he can see all post modifications, so I might catch you...
The Philosophy Forum
[I]This may all be pointless[/i]
Fuck no. Why would we want to do that?
Never seen an "air pistol" with a hammer here in the states., though I do know that there are real 50 Caliber air rifles for Elephant hunting. Is it responsible to aim any weapon at a pet?
Either way, untruth about your "air pistol" or not, you have been involved enough in conversations to understand that you NEVER point an air pistol or any gun at something UNLESS you intend to kill it. Were you planning on killing your pet? Accidents happen, it's the nature of life and the taker of life. Here in the USA and I am guessing in other countries around the world, you pulling your "air pistol" on someone will all but guarantee you to be taken into custody at the best and shot at the worst.
That "air pistol" was in fact a 50,000 calibre pistol, fully loaded with bullets that can kill 10 elephants with a single shot.
I'm done with the tainted bait.
That was clearly an air pistol. I had exactly the same as a kid.
Would shoot strong enough to hurt a pet, but the trigger was pretty hard to pull. Not something you could shoot accidentally. Not like my first paintball marker, for example. One of my friend once shot a painting in our house because he forgot he still had a pellet loaded in the feeder.
Maybe cause you and the Brits raped the whole planet? >:)
On another note, you still didn't tell me what's going on with that birdy pic Cranky... :D
No, that was clearly [i]not[/I] an "air pistol". That was clearly a pistol shaped rocket launcher capable of levelling a skyscraper full of elephants with a single blast.
And, besides, what exactly was I supposed to do? [I]She was looking at me funny![/I]
First you tell me I can't starve her, now you tell me I can't point a fully loaded gun at her with intent to kill. Whatever next!
I recall your sentiment towards going after an undergrad or grad degree in philosophy. So, what's the gist of the issue? Is it job-related or how academia is shaped?
If I recall correctly it has to do with academia, right?
So, what's wrong with academia nowadays?
It's full of bitterly sarcastic lefties, and they're all in cahoots with each other.
Texan confirmed!. :P
Oh lord, what's not wrong with it these days? That would require a post I don't have the time to compose at present. If you Google your question, you will undoubtedly stumble across several reasons.
Then it seems that that is something I have no control over. So, I might as well suck it up. Let me know your thoughts about this matter. I posted this question here some time ago and I recall that you might have already addressed the point.
My advice is: start the supplement business. You're in Cali, that's almost perfect for that kind of business, great support laws or so I've heard.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5522141286001/?#sp=show-clips
Nah, I'm an idealist at heart. Anything academia is where I see myself being happy.
No, we treated the whole world to the benefits of our superior civilisation, sometimes against a little resistance, and with insignificant input from the Americans. Your gratitude is accepted, with condescension, but little enthusiasm.
She doesn't do that often. She had a phase where she would jump on top of my wardrobe. My previous cat would also sometimes like to sit and lay high up on top of the cupboards. I think it's natural, perhaps relating to security or getting a vantage point for hunting prey or both. There are some theories out there on the internet for this behaviour.
Business, business, business. Sheesh! Do you have any advice which doesn't involve starting a business?
You don't like birds? (This is a blue jay -- a member of the fine Corvidae family of squawking, smart birds -- crows, ravens, magpies...) Bright red male cardinals and male bright-blue jays are the preferred birds for winter greeting cards -- pine cones, pine needles, red and blue feathers, white snow... all that.
You preferred my long-time chair pic?
Or, perhaps it's just like your behavior, not linked to some distant evolutionary factor, but simply a stupid choice. If you can have free will, why not your bug eyed cat?
Quoting Hanover
Quoting Hanover
Quoting Hanover
Are you hungry or something? For heavens sake go and eat. I prefer you all wisdom-ish and that appears to only occur those sporadic moments when you have food in you.
Quoting Hanover
Back of knee, please?
Quoting Thorongil
No darling, I was being sarcastic. I think only rapists would agree with you.
Dont you realize that is deeply in love with me? All of your huffing and puffing ultimately amounts to classic INTJ grandstanding; hollow, and made of false dreams, composed of unshed, suppressed tears. My INFP tenderness, supreme wisdom, and soft spoken moral authority always controlled the situation from the start, without you even realizing it, because I never even bothered to throw the gauntlet down.
Oh I do like birds, I was just wondering why you chose to put the bird up!
Quoting Bitter Crank
Hmmm - I probably liked the bird more actually because it appears to be a living creature but a chair is just... dead. lol
You can be an idealist entrepreneur X-)
Quoting Sapientia
Well yaaaah, the world needs more entrepreneurs.
Quoting Sapientia
Nope. I have your best interest at heart, and you are all smart people, so I can only give you the same advice I give myself X-)
Quoting Sapientia
>:) - maybe she wants to hunt you. When I took my dog out for a walk, I let her free at one point and she ran ahead and hid behind a bush, and waited until I passed by it... and then attacked me :-O
Quoting unenlightened
Hahahaha you Brits are so funny, you are always stuck up with a carrot up your bums being like "cup of tea, cup of tea" >:O >:O >:O
Borat is a Kazakh. Not everybody funny is English, you damn snob.
Yes they are.
We often hunt each other. It's fun to play with predators like domestic cats. I find it hard to resist.
Never!
Love is your master, for he masters you;
And he that is so yoked by a fool,
Methinks, should not be chronicled for wise.
Thanks Tiff, I hope you had a great day. I deboned a 13 lbs. Turkey and brought it over to a friends house, and we all had a grand time. It was a fine day.
A needlessly foul and inflammatory remark.
That's what happens to you when you read too many of SLX's favorite POMO authors X-)
Oh. Why? TimeLine's rudeness is known across the entire realm already...
Hopefully the Lord will bless you, and you won't have to >:O
Indeed, that was the intent, reciprocal for your very foul remarks that women are to blame for pretending to ignorance that they behave and dress in a manner intended only to excite the sexual drives of men. It is the same attitude when victims are blamed for being sexually assaulted. YOU are responsible for your own sexual drives even if a thousand women walk past you naked and if not, blaming them will not change your accountability.
[hide]
16:12 sums it up. There's a difference between condoning sexual assault and rape, and being baited.
Nothing you said was reciprocal. I pointed out a demonstrable fact, which you have simply strawmanned by pretending I was talking about women as a general category. I don't think all women behave the way in which I described. But many of them do. Try denying the claims being made or stop replying to me.
Quoting TimeLine
More strawmanning. I never said that one isn't responsible for one's sexual drive. In fact, I implied that one IS thus responsible, since I explicitly said that lust is a vice that ought to be put under control. How you get "that's a waaapist mindset" out of that is beyond me. People who commit rape, real rape, not the title 9 bullshit on the campuses, ought to be castrated or killed, as a certain commentator I follow often says. They are 100% responsible for said crime, not the manner of the woman's appearance. So once again, respond to the claims being made and stop making obscene accusations.
Yes, It was.
Quoting Thorongil
I see no demonstration of this "fact" - demonstrate for me, please. Just a note, your opinion on the matter is not a demonstrable fact.
Quoting Thorongil
The control being controlling women?
Quoting Thorongil
What is real rape? Despite your clearly homicidal tendencies (thou shalt not kill?), is this not a verification that you are victim-blaming?
No, it wasn't.
Quoting TimeLine
You need demonstration of the fact that some women dress in a sexually provocative manner? Really? Please stop playing dumb.
Quoting TimeLine
What the hell? No, the control of lust, a vice. Your reading comprehension is beneath abysmal and not the least bit charitable.
Quoting TimeLine
I don't believe for a second you don't know what rape is. But here's the Department of Justice, in case you really are that woefully ignorant: "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
Yes. It was.
Quoting Thorongil
Why did you even say that? To what purpose was that statement even made?
Quoting Thorongil
In the event that you see those women who dress in a sexually provocative manner, is it their fault or your problem that you may experience this said-lust?
Quoting Thorongil
Now, can you also explain to me the difference between what real rape is vis-a-vis 'title 9 bullshit on campuses'?
Sure it won't change your accountability if you like rape them or something of that nature. But if you commit no crime, while they dressed that way for the purpose of sexually provoking you, then they have done something immoral.
Aren't there women who use their bodies as a weapon to control or dominate men? I suggest you open your eyes and look around, since there are many women who try to do just that.
Quoting Buxtebuddha
Well, it's no mystery that some women will abuse their physical beauty to get what they want, just like there are people who abuse their wealth, power, status, etc. I don't see why this wouldn't be the case.
Quoting TimeLine
Hmmm yeah, sometimes they do do that. I've seen countless examples, I've even had women tell me they do that.
Quoting TimeLine
>:O >:O >:O
Quoting Thorongil
TimeLine will never give up her weapons. I realised this long ago about her. She seeks to do whatever it takes to build a society where she has power (even if she doesn't use it) and others don't. To her, it's important that she is allowed - if she so decides - to use her beauty to control a man, and the man not being able to do anything about it. It's all politics for her.
Are you the ghost of turkeys past trying to claim hold of the present?
The personification of a belch.
You could try reading the post again and those before it.
Quoting TimeLine
It depends. They provide the occasion for sin, as it were, but I then have the choice of indulging in the sin or not. I don't like objectifying women or treating them as mere means for my viewing pleasure, but when the latter is how many young women deliberately present themselves, it can be difficult maintaining one's integrity. While in college (a state school with a notorious reputation for partying), I would sometimes carry a rubber band in my pocket and snap my wrist if I caught myself gazing inappropriately while walking around campus, in contradistinction to the behavior of my fellow males who had no compunctions about ogling.
Quoting TimeLine
I already gave you the definition of the former. The other concerns the "rape culture" hysteria that has swept college campuses in recent years, which you're welcome to read up on, though I doubt you will. I will say that part of the problem is the postmodernist redefinition of violence as something that can be equated with mere speech that one doesn't like.
Yeah, it must just be my imagination. All women in reality dress like the nuns in that video I linked to you. I just have my patented rapist goggles on, which I received upon being inducted into the patriarchy.
Yah, I mean there are no women out there who ever thought about using their bodies to provoke sexual desire in men... that's just unheard of, in the entire history of humanity...
I don't know if I understand this. I'm responsible for my behavior, but not urges, at least to the extent they're not intentional. The woman would also not be responsible for eliciting the urge. Responsibility would be lacking entirely if all I did was notice an attractive woman because intentionality is a necassary element of responsibility. That I have the urge to commit any immoral act perhaps speaks to an internal weakness of mine, but the thought isn't immoral without the act, and I'd submit the actor is particularly moral the more he or she defies his or her urges and acts properly.
Realizing that everyone is not moral nor particularly concerned with controlling one's urges, it'd be prudent not to walk with money falling from one's pockets in an impoverished area of town where the urge to steal might be exaggerated due to need, although a thief in every part of town is subject to the same laws.
This is simply to say you may dress as you like, but you will arouse urges as a matter of biological evolution, and should that lead to improper behavior, you will be totally unblameworthy and your perpatrator entirely to blame, but you will nevertheless have exposed yourself to harm simply because there are bad people out there. I get that you shouldn't be required to alter your behavior in consideration of those far beneath you, but that's what we all do when buy locks for our doors isn't it?
Or, you could explain yourself considering that I am apparently unaware of why you decided to "demonstrate" the fact that some women dress in a sexually provocative manner.
Quoting Thorongil
How is how a person dresses a sin? That is what I am attempting to ascertain.
Quoting Thorongil
I see some very attractive men and feel nothing because who I feel attracted to follows getting to know them, the person that they are and so my instinctual drives do not control me. Your relationship with the external world relies on this moral apparatus or superego based on your religious position, but done so in a superficial way that you seem to rely on rubber bands around your wrist to snap you back to the notion that you need to control your psychosexual values. This works in stark contrast to your fellow males who respond immediately to their instincts.
You are not whole psychologically if you feel the need to do that.
We have the cognitive capacity for conscious reflection and a healthy psychology system involves mitigating a balanced relationship between moral consciousness and our instinctual drives. It is not to bury our natural inclination to sexual behaviour - whereby these urges are suppressed and therefore never reaches consciousness because it conflicts with our moral position that make it rationally unacceptable to experience (and why their sexual drives often become pathological in the process) - but to understand our place in an external world so that it does not govern our behaviour. This relationship between our instinctual drives and rational thought is through our capacity to empathise, to understand and reflect and develop healthy objective descriptions. A prostitute has a family, has a past, and what circumstances could have led this girl to what she finds herself in; surely such empathy should remove the sexual instinct and promote moral reflection, just as much as your love for your partner allows you to fulfil your sexual urges in a healthy way.
As for being exposed to harm, most violence against women occurs by people that they know.
Start here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/125929#Post_125929
Quoting TimeLine
I never said anything about the way a person dresses being a sin per se. I said the way a person dresses can be the occasion for sin, that is, the occasion for me to sin by objectifying the person in question. And if that was the intention of the person, then they too are culpable.
Quoting TimeLine
A self-contradiction. You feel attraction toward them, and so not nothing.
Quoting TimeLine
I don't have a religious position, I just borrowed a religious phrase to express my point.
Quoting TimeLine
That isn't the purpose. I already know about the need. It's just a reminder to maintain virtue, though I admit it's fairly superficial compared to the hairshirts of the Middle Ages. Perhaps I should upgrade.
Quoting TimeLine
Virtue in stark contrast to vice, correct.
Quoting TimeLine
Psychological wholeness is predicated on indulging in the objectification of women? You're not making sense here, but then, you haven't done so this entire time.
This is to equate health with immorality. I'm trying to argue against the objectification of women, which is wrong.
Calling me a "mongoloid pseudo-man" is a pretty racist thing to say, by the way.
Nobody's doing that here.
You are. Keep doing it and you may get yourself banned.
"Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them."
I don't see anyone doing that. Good grief.
Show me where I've defended rape and sexual assault, sweetie.
>:O
I want to believe you're being facetious. I really do, but I doubt you are.
Right, so what about the racist slur of your mod pal, eh?
Don't worry, all the mods will talk, slap Street's wrists, and then ban all of us for not doing what they want!
There are 3 classes of prostitutes: The largest class comprising those who, as the result of drugs, abuse, and coercion find themselves in that horrible situation. The smallest group are those who have freely chosen that path despite having other options, and then the middle group who are somewhere between choice and coercion. The unnuanced view that all prostitutes are victims and all their customers unempathetic abusers of sorts is simply a liberalized rationalization for traditional, conservative sexual mores and a projection of your own INFJ stated views on sexuality. To some, sex is just sex, and while that is understandably foriegn to you, you can't just label it "unhealthy" and expect others to adhere to your views simply because you use objective, medical labels.
You take the absurd view that all women choose their clothing to attract men and for no other reason?
Does no one read before accusing? I said not long ago: "I don't think all women behave the way in which I described. But many of them do."
Quoting Thorongil
It takes a certain kind of sexual-emotional stunting to even think that 'revealing dress' has anything to do with objectification in the first place. That you're so infantile that you can't see an attractive woman without thinking that it's some kind of 'occasion for sin' is your problem and no one else's.
"Lol."
Quoting StreetlightX
That you equate "attractive" with "revealing dress" says it all.
From mongoloid pseudo-man to female crab, I'm apparently anything but human.
"Newfoundland term for "weep child" or "whiner". One who sulks " (https://www.azdictionary.com/urban-dictionary/definition/sook)
As late as mid-20th century "mongoloid" also referred to a class of idiot -- mongoloid idiot, now termed "downs syndrome".
No, it is predicated on the fact that you wear a band around your wrist and flick it each time you see an attractive woman. I am unsure as to how you could possibly think that would make you psychologically whole.
Quoting Thorongil
There is no contradiction. I said I feel nothing toward very attractive men until I get to know them because I do not objectify them based on their appearances. Your unwarranted inferences are getting boring.
Quoting Thorongil
There is no virtue and vice with that point you were attempting to convey, but clearly you see yourself as morally superior. In that example, there was mindlessly instinctual and pathologically repressed, you being the latter and in stark contrast.
Quoting Thorongil
Can you confirm that you follow no religion?
You clearly did not understand the point and I find it ridiculous that you even mentioned so-called 'classes' here; my point was that there is a person there. They have a past, they have parents or a family, so what environmental, social and sociopolitical circumstances led to them selling their bodies just as much as what would compel a man to think he is no longer morally culpable only because he paid money. This diverges into a different subject-matter at this point, but when you have millions of women, children (including boys) being sold into sexual slavery and being conscious that the largest 'class' are a result of abuse and coercion, the nuance behind your sex is just sex is really just intentional ignorance. It is no different to bystanders who can do something but do nothing and then say 'it wasn't me who did it.' So, indeed, sex is just sex, but that is not the problem.
Racists often make bigoted claims before pretending that they have friends from the said-community to somehow pardon their racism. To say many of them do is as much a problem as saying all.
You make it seem so dramatic. I didn't do it all that often. But tell me, does self-denial or the disciplining of the body and its appetites of any kind, even the most trivial kind as in my example, make one psychologically unwhole? What does that phrase even mean? I think you should address the points I've made on their own terms and not dismiss or deflect from them with armchair psychologizing.
Quoting TimeLine
It's boring having to repeat myself. You feel attraction toward attractive men, otherwise you would not have used that adjective.
Quoting TimeLine
There's no reason for such an inference. Does the mere attempt to live virtuously constitute moral superiority? No, and that's all I've claimed for myself. I try to live by what is good and right, but that doesn't mean that I always do. You, on the other hand, seem rather assured of yourself on matters both moral and psychological.
Quoting TimeLine
Hey, thanks for diagnosing me with a mental disease on the basis of a single anecdote given by an anonymous poster on an Internet forum. Freud would blush to see such omniscient diagnostics. In all seriousness, you're saying here that when a man objectifies a woman by lusting after her physical appearance, if he does so with "mindless instinct," then there is nothing wrong with him, whereas there is something wrong with the person, such as myself, who would attempt not to do so. This is quite rich. Who would have thought to see the praise of mindless male instinct! I'm glad I've stuck with this conversation, as the mental gymnastics and self-sabotaging reversals of thought performed just to turn me into the bad guy are really quite spectacular to witness.
Quoting TimeLine
Maybe. What would confirming that mean?
Quoting TimeLine
Why is it a problem? Do you dispute the claim or not? Your throat clearing preface to this statement about racism makes no sense either, by the way.
For those of you arguing that women do not do this: have you ever been to a club or a Halloween party? This certainly does occur. This doesn't make them culpable to any action taken against them, but it might make it more likely, and definitely makes it more likely that they'll be objectified. The Shoutbox should be renamed the Bickerbox.
There is no conflict except for the one that you have created because if you restrict autonomy then it is no longer autonomy and so you are in fact opposed to it. The regulation of women' autonomy is often reinforced by those who repress their own sexual urges and their distorted moral position is projected to women who are blamed for the anxiety that is produced for feeling these sexual urges; being objectified becomes their fault and they are the "threat" to this so-called moral position that they hold. The reality is blame.
Quoting Thorongil
I may not have had sex with men and am dedicated to virtue and justice, but I still wear a bikini, short dresses and have a strong understanding of my sexuality; my underlying existential motivation in all my decisions is love and authenticity not because I follow some institutional or social requisites. It is my choice and just as much as I do not judge other women and support, protect and respect them, I also do this with men because I do not hastily generalise. I certainly do not pretend that I support liberty before forcing my worldview as an expectation onto other people.
I am going to ignore the rest of your nonsense as you are not as interesting as you think.
Why are we wasting our time here when we can meet for a coffee? I'll wear my sexually provocative dress with the sole intent of eliciting your arousal and you can ogle and lust like the pig-man that you are.
The issue with arguments from the likes of yourself and folks like and is not the actual content of the argument; it's the emotional and moralistic attitude. Words like "pathetic", "total fear", and "insecurity" re-enforce the toxic shame that fosters and builds sexual perversion. If you actually cared to improve the state of sexual mores in culture, you would consciously breed an attitude of non-shame when speaking about the issue. Just look at this childish mess of conversation here in the shoutbox: there's no possibility of reparations; the language from both sides is shameful; that is, it confirms toxic shame which is projected from one side of the argument to the other. How do you, , how do you, , how do you, , propose to change the minds of the likes of , of the likes of , if your only recourse to argument is to shame the person you consider the enemy? Do you really honestly think that tactic will have any possible positive result at all? No, you don't think that. You, like all of us, shame your moral opponent for your own sake. Not for the sake of your argument.
Are you not contradicting yourself by using a moralistic attitude to purport that we must attempt to argue the way in which you feel is right? To add insult to injury, you say that we are to blame for fostering sexual perversion because we breed an attitude of shame; what? It is actually in the reverse. You have just decisively undermined the overarching point that they are the ones who are shaming women and are hastily generalising while coverting such sexist views through moral overtones. We are not at fault if we expose the hollowness of their moral position. It is also not the first time you have used 'children' or 'childishness' and I am curious as to why exactly we become responsible to try and change their minds?
I now await your something like 'I tried' response to commit the very thing you are asking us to avoid.
I'm saying "shaming someone into seeing your moral viewpoint will always fail", and is therefore pointless. You and SLX, and to a lesser extent, Baden, have done that. I may have done that too by using language like "if you actually cared", "childish mess", and "No, you don't think that."
Quoting TimeLine
Where did I say that?
Quoting TimeLine
Do you mean "underlined", not "undermined"?
Quoting TimeLine
Exposing a hollow moral position doesn't absolve one from fault. It's possible, for instance, that both parties are at fault. That's exactly what I'm pointing out.
Quoting TimeLine
Where else, specifically, are you thinking of where I used that term? I remember talking to Wayfarer and mentioning a difference between childishness and childlikeness; childishness meaning insecurity and selfishness (the child crying because she can't have more chocolate), vs. childlikeness (eternal trust, wide-eyed possibility in the world, etc).
When I said this debate has been childish, I was referring to the constant stream of insults from both sides.
Finally, you haven't actually responded to my comments about toxic shame. That's the whole crux of my argument.
Quoting TimeLine
Please don't resort to these childish ad homs with me; you won't see me returning in kind, because I believe in you, me, and everyone else posting here; I believe we can debate freely without belittling one another.
I haven't really been involved in the debate and I'm not going to debate the debate. Suffice to repeat, sexism is against the rules and the rules will be enforced.
True that you haven't been as involved, as I already said. But you added your own opinion ("disgusting") into the debate with a ban warning for...who exactly? That's the only reason I included you in my comments. Maybe it wasn't quite warranted.
I understand where you're coming from, but as an admin I felt it necessary to give the warning. And I addressed the person I mostly had in mind directly after.
Ok, thanks, that makes sense.
Prejudice is rather disgusting, don't you think?
Quoting TimeLine
I legit lol'd at this.
This, for me, is very sane, and I can respect it.
Quoting StreetlightX
Now, this is just more of what I mentioned above; shaming your moral opponent for your own sake. It's a waste of breath. It's fundamentalist; it's not an actual argument. It's an appeal to shame. And mind you, I'm not even addressing the content of your argument yet.
No worries. I respect you, but I don't respect your argumentative approach here.
They ought to be shamed. It is their view of women which is the issue here.
In the case, the issue wasn't sexual mores per se (e.g. men ogling women) but instead their understanding of women and how it defines women in the context of sexuality. They were blaming women for the actions of men, as if a woman acting "proactively" was at fault for their actions taken against her.
Insecurity is a driver. Their own desire and it's relationship to women becomes a demon because they cannot separate being attracted from acting on desire or thinking they are owed sex. Attraction and desire becomes the enemy because they cannot separate it from reducing women to objects.
Since they do not view women as people in this context, they are incapable of understanding their attraction as something there, but denied, out of respect of a women present (no matter how "provocative" she might be). To be "attracted" becomes something to avoid because it must (supposedly) end in the abuse of women, since it cannot be separated form getting what you desire. Women get the blame for being an attractive presence. They put these men in a situation where they cannot avoid feeling the attraction, (supposedly) trapping them in a context where their objectification of women would cause them to be abusive.
They must hide from attraction because they do not have the empathy or respect to be rejected or acknowledge others are not just there for their sexual interests.
No; no one should ever be consciously shamed. Shame breeds secretivity, which breeds secret desires, which breeds sexual abuse. This is the entire crux of my argument. Apparently no one gets it.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
What case?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
"Their" meaning men? So men's understanding of women and how it defines women in the context of sexuality is important?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
"They" meaning men, again? If so, I agree.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes, an element of my argument about toxic shame.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
As always (and I vowed to go through your response and respond as logically as possible), this just is too vague. I have no idea what you mean.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes! Agreed. That's an aspect of toxic shame.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Right, so who's to blame?
Sure, so what? Nobody disagreed with this.
Quoting Baden
Oh yeah, sure some of you :-}
WHO?
Sun Tzu wrote in his Art of War that if the orders are clear and the underlings don't follow, then they are to be put to death. But if the orders aren't clear, and the underlings don't follow, then it is the general's fault.
This is incredibly dangerous because you retain a right to say "oh you were warned", although you never really warned anyone. Who is "some of you"? Is it me? Am I warned for example?
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Baden
So I haven't blurred the line at all, and yet you're not clarifying that I'm not warned. I fully acknowledged that the man is accountable in case of rape or similar regardless of how the woman dresses. That doesn't make the way the woman dresses morally irrelevant though.
Nor have I suggested for that matter that the only reason why women dress a certain way is to sexually control men.
So what's the issue? Who is warned. Please clarify yourself in clear language.Quoting Baden
Oh right, this is very helpful now. This enlightens the underlying issues for sure... I now certainly know who is at fault and who isn't :s ...
My point is you have misunderstood the shame. The issue with the arguments of several people in this thread isn't feeling attraction. It's their understanding of women.
They are the ones unable to separate attraction for getting what they desire, not the people shaming them. Our shaming of them is opposing this idea. We are pointing out attraction isn't any sort of monster because it is not (nor the presence of any attractive women) responsible for abuse. We are shaming them for equating attraction with getting women they desire.
No man should fear feeling attracted because it is never equivalent to the abuse of woman. Attraction simply doesn't mean a man gets to act or is owed anything. To be attracted *is a separate* to the objectification which results in abuse.
Any man can be in the presence of attractive women, naked and writhing, in all directions and not be abusive. All that it requires is he understand the women are people, not just there for him to get what he desires, no matter how "provocative" the women might be.
Men. They fail to recognise their abusive actions aren't defined by the presence of an attractive woman, making the excuse that somehow it was just the presence of a women they found attractive. They are lying to themselves. They are ignoring attraction does not define objectification (and so abusive actions) and then blaming the presence of attractive women for any abuse they commit or might commit.
How so? You're next sentences are
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Which either have nothing to do with shame, or you just haven't explained how they're related to the context of shame.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Again, is "they" referring to men?
If so, I assume the above sentence is within context of my argument about shame. So I assume you mean "men are the ones unable to separate attraction for getting what they desire, not the people shaming them here". If so, I never suggested that "the people shaming [men] here are the ones unable to separate attraction from getting what they desire."
What I was suggesting, instead, is that any language at all that suggests shame will inevitably engender shame; whether that language is directed towards victim, perpetrator, or whoever. Please try responding specifically to that argument, rather than your typical "the idea of perpetrator is actually predicated on..."
This.
>:O
So how do we teach the world that sex is a matter of mutual admirationn, play, and confident interaction? How do you teach that to the porn-addicted white 20-something males that make up the majority of the porn viewership online, for instance? What's your master plan? If you're so angry as to dole out so many ad homs, then you must be angry enough to have a plan for real change.
The Sun. Send everyone a copy of The Sun.
I'm not being sarcastic.
It means we are shaming them for thinking attraction to women is equivalent to getting what you desire, rather than men being attracted to women.
We are saying: "It's immoral to think women are objects who yours if you feel attracted to them. Attraction is not equivalent to getting what you want. Stop it and start recognising women are people."
Why not? Spoil sport.
I don't know. Do you really expect me to answer that? There's no miracle cure. Just education. I had a half-decent parent. Maybe I picked it up from her. Maybe it came naturally. Maybe I picked it up from society, or at least those within society who know right from wrong.
By exactly the sort of arguments made in this thread (amongst other things): pointing out the objectification is unacceptable (and that it's not attraction).
We take seriously the idea of understanding woman as people and recognise men feeling attraction isn't a problem.
If you're a moderator of the forum, and if you're going to participate in a debate about sexuality, then yes (in order of importance).
Quoting Sapientia
That's a paltry response in comparison to your assertion from just before:
Quoting Sapientia
I thought that you were talking in general, not specifically about the forum. I am a moderator of this forum, not society. I don't have a master plan for society, and when it comes to this forum, I use my judgement to decide what should or should not be moderated, and I liaise with my colleagues.
Again, you and no one else is actually addressing my argument about shame. Let me try again:
Shame is never appropriate. Rather, shame is always the result of emotional manipulation. This applies to both perpetrators, and victims, which is the reality that none of you are willing to accept.
All I'm trying to do is establish that reality, but no one so far is willing to even address the concept in the first place.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Typos not withstanding, I'm pretty sure I agree with you.
Why would you think that? The train of thought was: SLX said we should teach the world to be sexually enlightened, you agreed, then I asked how we do that, then you made a sarcastic comment, then I said "I'm not being sarcastic", then you called me a spoil sport, then you asked me if I really expected you to ask that hard question, then I said "if you're a mod and if you're going to debate sex, then yes".
So...that's on you.
Quoting StreetlightX
>:O >:O >:O - please give me a call when you decide to come out of your postmodernist books into the real world.
Sexuality is highly conflicting, that's exactly why we have so many rules regulating it.
That's wrong. Shame is a critical aspect of ethical teaching. We use it all the time to project immoral significance of and communicate how a person has done something wrong.
In fact, we could say it's understanding of the immoral person itself-- "That's immoral. You are a failure for doing it" is shame and the very definition of identifying immoral action.
That's no argument for the moral veracity of shame.
I'll make a brief argument for the moral impotency of shame:
A young, innocent boy is exposed to porn at age 13 via a magazine left in the woods out back. The natural sexual drive of his body is ignited without his consent, and without any knowledge whatsoever about sex, or about what he's experiencing.
Two years later, he's taught at church about the shameful indecency of lust. Now, those sexual feelings that were unexpectedly ignited in him are now associated with the shame of something that is utterly taboo within the church: sexual desire in general. He's now taught that that desire he feels is sinful.
Now, as a result of his upbringing, all sexual desire is considered wrong.
_______
Now, who is responsible for this person's sexual mores? Is that person 100% responsible for their own sexual mores? Is society 50% responsible? 25%? 75%?
So for millenia humans were just stupid, and now, thanks to your favorite postmodernist authors, we are all enlightened right? :s I wonder how we could ever have thought that sexuality was conflictual and there had to be rules regulating it... judging by the moral codes around, it seems that this was almost universal. Maybe 99% of human beings who ever lived were stupid, who knows :s
I can already see SLX, with saliva drooling by the side of his mouth, "Dis book, you have to read dis book! It is the absolute truth finally revealed! It's not even worth debating others now!" :B
That would be a strawman; we are shaming objectification, not sexual desire or sexual attraction.
Our point is there is no need for attraction or desire to be thought of sinful because it's not equivalent to objectification (and abuse). People shouldn't be shamed for attraction. They should be shamed for objectification and abuse.
Again, no, this comes back to the very argument I'm making. Shaming someone for objectification and abuse will only perpetuate and intensify that objectification and abuse.
Yeah, that wrong; as said earlier, it's the basic understanding someone has taken and immoral action, the awareness is something ought not be done. If there is no shaming, there will be no understanding an action is immoral.
In many cases, shaming does not intensify that objectification and abuse, but bring someone to an understanding that's wrong and not to do it again.
I am deeply ashamed of my inappropriate emotional manipulation, but shame on you for shaming me. You at least should know better. ;)
I think that your reality cannot be established, at least in the terms in which you put it. I would like to persuade you that eating people is wrong, and to do that is functionally identical with making you ashamed of all the times you have eaten people. I can see no way round it except to smile nervously and let you carry on with your diet.
What would be inappropriate, and probably counter-productive, would be to call you a disgusting degenerate uncivilised cannibal savage misanthrope who is not worth talking to. Not that I can never think that of someone, but then the ignore/ban button is appropriate, not the tirade of insults. There is this thing - to appeal to your better nature, but your better nature is inevitably ashamed of your worse nature, isn't it?
Because of what you said, of course. Anyway, I'm not interested in your red herring about my role as a moderator on this forum, and I'm not interested in elaborating or discussing this any further with you.
No thanks. I'll just leave it at the eye roll.
Which, I guess, explains why old grandmas are more at risk of sexual violence than strippers.
Look, I know you held out because Baden told us to lay down the women vs men crap, but it isn't an excuse to bring out your shiniest bullshit once the curfew is out.
I guess that goes along the lines of "shame is not a true emotion"...?
Never liked that idea. The first time I experienced shame in my life and remembered it was when I was watching a horror movie, at the tender age of 6. Voodoo doll curses whoever kissed the person who stole it to die horribly. At some point there is a sex scene where someone cheat on somebody else.
I genuinely felt more horror at the cheating than anything else in that movie. I'm not sure what came first, the feeling of horror or the understanding of what was cheating. Because I'm sure before then I didn't even know what cheating was.
Let's assume that's true then there are 2 options to avoid sexual violence:
1. Women are forced to cover themselves;
2. Men pick up a dictionary and look up the word "no".
Even so, I don't agree with the assumption it's a contributing factor as that implies those women are partly to blame, which they aren't.
Huh?
Quoting Akanthinos
So full of yourself. Go take a walk and get off my neck.
Quoting Benkei
*rings up Merriam-Webster*
Helps cause. No where in that definition, nor any post I've made here, suggests that a contributing factor lays blame at anyone's feet. As I said before, if a woman wears booty shorts and has her tits hanging out in the public space, nobody ought to be surprised when most men will stare not at her eyes, but at her rack and trunk. I think what Thorongil and Agustino have attempted to argue is that they don't like being put into a position where they have to look at someone like that. The same principle is reflected in male juicers and other sorts of douchebags as well. If I want to see tits, ass, cock, what have you, I'll go to the inner city and hire a prostitute or go to a strip club. I don't dress like I'm ready for a shagging, so I don't think anyone else should either.
Also, I don't think some of you here even know what a slut is. I am a college student. I see them walking all around my campus. They know exactly what they're doing. And what they're not doing is "protesting for women's rights." That sort of crap is what ironically keeps the perverts very well supplied with slutty women who are more than willing to be ogled over.
Dressing in a sexually provocative way is the lowest form of female empowerment that Western modernity has attempted to peddle to young women, just as some traditionally masculine gender norms have been unfair to many men, such as men being shamed for being emotional, sensitive, quiet, or interested in poetry, dance, theater, etc.
Bottom line is that if people think it's okay for women to be nude in public, then it must also be okay for men to be nude in public. For those here who have children, if you think it's prudent for them to see nude people when you're in the grocery store or at the park, you're patently insane.
You think he's going to do that? Gimme a break. I called him out and he shut right up, that's why he waved his ban hammer because that's all he has.
"I am a college student" should never be used to give any credence to an argument, especially not one about gender relations.
Break out the straitjacket, dude.
https://youngnaturistsamerica.com/nudism-and-sexuality-nudist-sex/
Conditio sine quo non is an established principal in law as is contributory negligence - both would apply to your examples and as such the implication is those women are partly to blame. Yes, you didn't say that but nevertheless that's the consequence of taking such a position,which is precisely why it's wrong.
Yeah, to me it's obvious that @Baden gets easily nervous around controversial matters, and ignores what he already knows about you. Like the fact that you often resort to vulgarity and profanity when discussing sexual issues.
Baden probably associated that vulgarity and profanity with sexism, although it obviously has nothing to do with it.
For example that is quite offensive and violent language right there.
I think that dressing provocatively can increase the likelihood of sexual abuse, depending on the part of town you spend your time in. That's like how walking with a ton of dough in your pockets, dressed in flashy and expensive clothing will increase your chances of getting attacked if you walk through the ghetto and da hood.
Of course, in both cases, it's not your fault, morally, for getting attacked. Nor should it be the case that your chances of getting attacked go up if you do those things. But in practice and in actual fact, they do.
I think in both cases you do have a degree of blame from a pragmatic point of view (ie you were stupid), since you could have taken the steps necessary to minimise your chances of getting attacked, by not walking through the wrong part of town dressed in super expensive clothes and with a lot of cash on you or by dressing modestly and not outrageously.
Which is a textbook conditio sine quo non argument and would legally exculpate the assaulter if it would fly. Luckily, the justice system in the USA has largely realised that argument for what it is : a fallacy - in light of the millions of unmolested "sluts" and millions of men who know what "no" means.
The point is that in a just world women and men could be as stupid as they wanted and not get raped. And what kind of shaming is that of a victim as well? "Yeah, of course she didn't deserve it but it was really stupid."
So great, only stupid girls get raped?
EDIT: also rape happens everywhere. It isn't even like you can avoid it like a dangerous alley. In a club, in a taxi, at home, public transport, at work etc. Etc.
Right, I agree. That's why I said it's not their moral or legal fault. Such a thing, in a just world, shouldn't happen to them, regardless of the fact that they have dressed indecently, etc.
Quoting Benkei
It's not shaming, it's just the truth. If you go dressed in Louis Vuitton and other such brands with cash falling out of your pockets in the hood, and you get attacked, then haven't you been stupid? You may have been a victim, but that doesn't change that you were also stupid. And it's not a shaming, it's just the truth. As your friend, when I visit you in hospital, I will tell you that you were an idiot and for your own good you should never do something like that again once you recover.
Quoting Benkei
No, obviously not, that is, first of all, a strawman. I only said that dressing provocatively in the wrong place may increase the base level chance of getting sexually assaulted.
That is likely to be true, but only from a pragmatic point of view, not from a moral or legal one. So sure, the act may not have happened if they rapist didn't see a woman who attracted him. However, it is not the woman's moral or legal fault that she did happen to attract him, regardless of how she was dressed.
Quoting Buxtebuddha
Right, I've been a college student too, so I know what you're talking about, but then again, it's not very nice to call these people "sluts". The term has violent connotations related to it. Connotations that have to do with sexual abuse, such as "suck it you slut, go on!" , etc. So unless you think about yourself having such a relationship with these women, then what's the point of calling them sluts?
Presumably, you want a nice, decent girl for yourself, so these women are really doing you a favour by being so openly licentious - they tell you who they honestly are, so that you can stay away from them. It's like in a business. You have prospecting, lead generation, and conversions.
First you prospect - which means that you're looking for ways to eliminate everyone whose persona or profile doesn't interest you. Those women already do the job for you. They eliminate themselves - much better than having lying and conniving women, who hide their licentious behaviour. Then from those who remain as prospects, you need to further separate those who are interested in you from those who aren't - that's lead generation. Now once you have them hot leads, you try to convert the right one :D
I think you're just knocking down a strawman. I am not saying that the abuser can use the woman's promiscuity as a cop out for his own actions. The rapist is wrong 100% of the time. What I am arguing against is the notion that there is never a reason why a rapist rapes and that the raped or abused couldn't have helped themselves. Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't. That's all I'm saying. Dunno what's so outrageous about this opinion.
Nice ageism there. I call for a ban. This behavior is unacceptable.
Quoting unenlightened
But that'd set my willy free :(
Nakedness is fine, it just has to be coherent in its public demonstration. The original image posted by somebody with the girls with "sluts" written on their bellies and with stars on their nipples or whatever - I don't think that's proper public behavior. But if you're at a nudist beach, that's fine. If you're walking naked in a planned event supporting breast cancer research, go for it! Streaking nude for no good reason - no, sorry, that's not civilized behavior, in my opinion.
Very poor practice if you ask me.
There were also no posts deleted, etc. If there was any sexism, it ought to have been deleted along with warnings. As things stand, nobody understands who was warned, and what in particular caused them to be warned.
Excluding now those left-wing fanatics who dominate the forum, we know who they are... I feel there really is some bias going on, where conservative positions are sought to be exterminated and not given a fair hearing.
But apparently calling your fellow female students "slut" is the height of appropriate behaviour.
Interesting. I've been on the fence for some time about drug legalization, leaning toward a libertarian stance, but this certainly gives me pause.
Canada is legalizing as of 18 July 2018. Each Provinces are responsible to set up their system of distribution and licensing. So here in La Belle Province, we are going to have a governmental society that sells pot just like we do with alcohol. 150 points of sales max in the entire province. No growth allowed in residential areas. Between 7-8$ per gram. Almost all profits put back into health and prevention.
For the time being, I like the model.
If you can articulate how to best respond to the following remarks, despite the fact that most victims of sexual assault know the perpetrator whereby rapists are often acquaintances or family members, then I will agree with you. It is impossible to reason with those who covert their discriminatory and fallacious hasty generalisations that they have the audacity to claim as the "truth" and such people are impossible to change; they simply do not hear or see reason.
Conservatism as a political position has no necessary connection at all with sexism as far as I'm concerned. Certainly, calling women who wear revealing clothes "sluts" and blurring the line on the responsibility for rape and assault has nothing to do with conservatism. I may not be a conservative, but I read conservatives (for example on redstate.com) and respect a lot of what many of them have to say even if I disagree strongly with much of it. (Same for many conservative viewpoints on this site).
Quoting Agustino
No, I don't. Who are they?
And assaulting others' characters with claims you can't, and won't back up.
Quoting Baden
Tick, tock, still waiting for you show me my sexist comments, Baden, Godhead of all Truth.
Quoting Buxtebuddha
Here's the comment highlighted in the mod forum. The implication is that wearing revealing dress makes a woman an indecent slut and that she bears some responsibility for the sexual violence that follows. I'm sure you will try to come up with some excuse to justify your comment but I have no intention of debating this with you. I'm telling you what the implication is, that comments like this are considered sexist here, and that you will be banned if you continue to make them.
My God! That's moose turd pie. It's good though.
But, there's obviously no point in defending myself here. You've said it yourself you're not invested in this discussion nor are you willing to spend your precious time getting informed, so I shouldn't waste my own time with someone who can't be bothered to care. It's obviously easier for you to threaten bans than to actually understand someone's thoughts. Whatever, you've made up crap about posters you don't like and have slandered them before, I shouldn't be surprised really.
The irony is that your attitude is more deeply disrespectful of women than whatever Buxtebuddha and his cohort have to say. It's creepy and it's arrogant.
Good though.
How?
Thanks for your idiosyncratic support. Would it be disrespectful to minorities and / or creepy and arrogant if I said we won't tolerate racism here?
Baden threatened to ban Buxtebuddha for stating that women need to take responsibility for their own safety, admittedly in a way that has pretty creep undertones.
Are you joking?
Saying "We won't tolerate sexism, racism, yada, yada, yada." is fine. Saying "We have to protect the poor little women from even a hint of a contrary view." is creepy and arrogant.
Where does he say this?
No.
:-d You may have missed the long open discussions we have already had about sexism and how the mod team should deal with it. We're now obliged to enforce the guidelines as discussed. You can read whatever else you want into it. That's your issue.
Is it your position that Buxtebuddha deserves to be banned for writing "Dressing like a slut can be and often is a contributing factor in cases of sexual violence?"
It is my position that everyone should follow the guidelines. Baden nor any other moderator thinks that they "have to protect the poor little women from even a hint of a contrary view" so I am not sure where you jibbed that notion from?
If I were to go walking out in the woods where I knew there were tigers and I was mauled by tigers, would you consider me responsible for what happened? If a woman goes out into an unsafe area wearing sexually provocative clothes and she is attacked, would you consider her responsible for what happened?
If I made that statement, would I be banned?
1) That's not the full quote.
2) It was an example but not the only objectionable thing he said
3) He wasn't banned. He was warned.
4) But, yes sexism is against the rules and sexists will be banned. It's right there in the guidelines.
Yes, if you are going to claim that women are responsible for the sexual violence against them purely because of the clothing they choose to wear, you will be banned. (Your "statement" is in the form of a question though so it depends on your meaning).
Then I stand behind my statement - Your attitude is more deeply disrespectful of women than whatever Buxtebuddha and his cohort have to say.
OK. I am aware of your idiosyncratic views. You're entitled to them.
Idiosyncratic = something Baden disagrees with
Actually, I think most people here would agree that it is both sexist and disgusting to blame women for sexual violence against them purely on the basis of their clothing. But regardless, it is the policy that that is unacceptable, yes.
No I wouldn't. That would be the bear or tiger's fault, but they aren't able to be prosecuted in a court of law. Are you really equating the prey drive of bears and tigers to the sexual desires of modern men? This sounds like an argument a sexual predator might try to use in court. I would hold men to a higher standard than that.
The point is this: no matter how flamboyant or provocative any woman behaves in public, she is never responsible for being sexually assaulted. That doesn't mean there can't still be public decency laws.
Two points. First - it is neither sexist nor disgusting to say that people, grownups, are responsible for keeping themselves safe. Second - The question isn't whether or not I agree with what was said, only whether or not it rises to the level of something that should be banned.
I don't get this. White-Knighting might be a bit retrograde, might express a certain attitude toward women that is undesirable, but who would accept that it is more demeaning to women than slut-shaming?
It was an informal fallacy that had no equal or comparable value that any judge would find laughable.
Talk to some rape victims who happened to be wearing shorts when they were attacked. I think I've been patient enough and explained things to you. If you don't like it, that's fine by me.
You are strawmanning Buxte, as he never said what you attribute to him here, and T Clark is exactly right to call you out for your white knight pretensions.
Gonna ban me?
The only reason I am aware of a woman dressing immodestly (and may I add that I am a woman myself) is to gain attention; good and bad. Can she control who looks at her? No, but she can generally control what everyone else sees. So, if a woman knows that dressing a certain way will cause a certain response from others, why would she dress that way and not expect that reaction? Seems no different than licking a metal pole in the dead of winter; it's gonna stick. The pole isn't sexist or racist, it just does what the laws of nature command it to do. So, in order for anyone to say that a woman dressing a certain way would not generally prompt a particular response is to say that she is ignorant; which would imply that women are morbidly stupid. And that is indeed a sexist statement. Instead, one ought to be inclined that women are not morons, and actually have a degree of intelligence as do their male counterparts.
Does this make a woman fully responsible for being raped? By no means! But it is a logical conclusion that dressing immodestly will increase her probability as being seen as a toy instead of a living, breathing, thinking human capable of making rational decisions. As no grown, educated person would lick a metal pole outside in the freezing cold, a woman should not suppose that dressing immodestly will not bring sexist and possibly dangerous reactions.
:-d
"Sexual harassment is about power; therefore, a target who is dressed provocatively is not the ideal target for the would-be harasser, who appears motivated at least in part by his ability to dominate his victim. Provocative dress does not necessarily signify submissiveness but instead may be an indication of confidence and assertiveness."
The focus on dress completely obscures the dimension of power and opportunity which, far more than any idiotic and sexist appeal to appearance, affords instances of rape. Fuck your appeals to modesty, you sexually-repressed fucks.
I agree. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that this type of defense has been attempted in court before. I think the underlying argument is insulting to men, frankly.
Even if this wasn't the case, focusing on how women dress rather than how the men react/behave would be ideologically backwards thinking.
Hey, Baden. I think you should ban Lone Wolf too.
Also, just to remind everyone:
Quoting Buxtebuddha
It's as if nobody reads! Appalling how pernicious some of you are in discrediting valid, though differing, opinions. It's intellectually disingenuous.
I tried 3 pages ago. It does not sink.
Children and golden-age crones are the most likely age categories to be abused sexually. Not because those toddlers are rocking the newest mini-skirts, nor because those grandmothers are all caught out in their thongs. But because they are the most easy to prey upon.
Do we ban people for "ideologically backwards thinking" too? Maybe we should.
What is dressing immodestly mean to you?
So it's insulting to women because it removes responsibility for their actions, but men are equated to a frozen metal pole? OK.
Quoting Lone Wolf
Which actually illustrates the point that the "slut walks" are trying to make. They are trying to make clear that how one dresses never amounts to an invitation for unwanted sexual advances.
Hey, Baden. I think StreetlightX is calling me a shithead. Is he allowed to do that?
Hey, wait. Isn't that an ad hominem attack? Are those allowed?
Yeah, but reference to children and old people don't fit the moralizing frame of our sexual high-priests who live in morbid fear of women's sexuality.
(Y) They only consider an 'ideal victim' as worthy of sympathy.
I understand the very small point you were trying to make, however I think your solution sidesteps the problem. Women should be held to public decency laws just like men, but they should be held to those laws by law enforcement and not some small possibility of being sexually assaulted by some neanderthal. In the meantime, we can try to teach young men that they are solely responsible for their actions rather than tell young women to dress modestly lest they invite attack.
If shaming works at all, it works for parents on very young children when the basic kernels of morality are being taught--and only then when used judiciously. When parents get carried away with shaming, their children get screwed up. As children get older shaming becomes less productive, then finally counterproductive. Shaming adults? No. Forget it.
What does work? Nothing, very specifically, very effectively. Adult behavior and attitudes are difficult to change. Education, example, modeling, peer group pressure--all these methods are "weak forces", but over time they work as well as anything can.
If you want to teach young men to respect young women as persons -- which of course is an eminently worthwhile goal, stick to positive methods. Young women need guidance too about how to interact with young men. And the same methods should be used: education, examples, modeling, peer group pressure.
Threats are another popular method. ("if you don't stop uttering those opinions, you will be banned") Don't count on getting the desired results by threatening men (and women) with dire consequences if they don't follow your advice.
As reluctant as several of you might possibly be to reappraise your basic assumptions about behavior between men and women (Baden, TimeLine, Willow of Darkness, Streetlight, et al) I think this would be useful for you. I'm not suggesting that you should conclude that men's behavior toward women is just fine; rather I think you need to grant women more credit for being able to deal with men.
Now, maybe typical current college women really are incapable of dealing with anything problematic. Hence their need for safe zone shelters, trigger warnings, protection for abrasive opinions they don't agree with, etc. The need to be given encouragement to live in the real world. But most women, my opinion at least, are capable of taking care of themselves.
Women need to learn the boor control skills of sophisticated women. And yes, sophisticated men can learn boor behavior avoidance.
Hey, there is no "our side." I don't want to be lumped in with you troglodites.
I also wonder if your GIF will be deleted when I check the forum tomorrow, as the one I posted not long ago was the subject of rebuke in this very thread.
EDIT: Sorry. "Don't forget pseudo-man and pathologically repressed asshole"
I don't disagree with much of what you said but despite all the white noise around, we're a moderated forum and we have rules on sexism*, racism and so on, which we're obliged to enforce. There's not much more to it than that from my point of view.
(*Discussed ad nauseum on previous discussions. The last complaint was we were too lenient. The new complaint is we are too strict. And so on...).
What you may say about shaming may be all well and good, but are you suggesting that somehow they are justified in their fallacious, hasty generalisations that shame women on the whole who become victims of sexual assault apparently because of what they wear? Indeed, are you saying here that women need to be given...
Quoting Bitter Crank
Why are we responsible for their behaviour? This is classic Adam and Eve storytelling, of course, when Adam bites the apple and is faced with the consequences, it is Eve's fault.
"Style of presentation" is important. Pretty much everyone adjusts their public presentation to suit their wishes, within their means. Back when I was svelte and still had brown hair I liked to go to the gay beach in the summer and walk around nude -- certainly not to maximize vitamin D uptake. I attracted exactly the kind of attention I desired. (40 years later, forget it. Alas.)
Gay men, other men too, like to signal with more or less clothing, and it isn't just a question of wardrobe options. They want a certain kind of response from their outfit, and from the amount of skin or shape and physique that is displayed. Why would women be any different?
Clothing is way too cultural for it to not have suggestive meanings. A man can't dress in a black suit with a clerical collar and then say, "Oh, I just felt like wearing this" after everyone identified him as a religious.
Vestis Virum/femina Reddit (clothes make the man/woman) is pretty true. Thinking the disposition of one's clothing is irrelevant is just obtuse.
It's obvious and non-controversial to tell people to lock their doors, and we all recognize it would be a pretty useless defense for the burglar to argue that he shouldn't be found guilty because the homeowner failed to lock his door and was therefore asking for it.
Why that cannot be used an analogy for sexual assault without creating ire is likely due to the fact that blaming the victim in sexual assault is common and has been a real impediment to those seeking to reduce sexual assault. That is to say, no one is going around blaming victims in other contexts to the point where it affects the ability to prosecute the criminal.
There is also some troubling subtext to many of the comments submitted, where posters suggest that the purpose of public decency standards is to control the violence inherent in the male libido. The reason I don't want pornographic billboards, public street sex, naked women walking down the street, and all other imaginable sexual displays has nothing to do with my concern that if I see such images I will forcibly assault the nearest woman, but it's that I simply wish to be spared such things.
Yeah, how could a woman not expect to be raped and/or sexually harrassed when dressed 'immodestly'? How oh how?
This being the presumably 'good', 'well-expressed point' Thorong finds so compelling.
I mean gosh even men ought to be insulted by such condescending drivel - or perhaps some men - and apparently women - here really do identify themselves with the abundant intelligence and agency of a frozen mental pole in the dead of winter.
The impediment is the assumption that victims who wear revealing clothing (which I have yet to actually see anyone explain what this may mean - what is "sexually provocative dressing"?) are allegedly consenting as they are attempting to seduce the aggressor by what they wear. There is no evidence whatsoever that revealing clothing bears any relevance to non-consensual acts of sexual penetration or violence and it is therefore purely and unequivocally sexist. The greatest impediment is the socially ingrained misogyny and depending on the culture you are from can have astounding consequences.
I am ambivalent about the argument that I have been making about women taking responsibility for their own safety. On one hand, I believe it is true. I work in construction. When I'm at a construction site, I spend a lot of my time thinking about safety, trying to identify hazards, and trying to foresee injuries. On the other hand, women should be able to be and feel safe wherever they go. In an ideal world, it should be something they don't even have to think about.
I mostly got involved in this discussion because I don't think it's reasonable to shut down discussion on this issue by labeling relevant opinions as sexist and threatening to ban people who make them.
Can you explain what "sexually provocative dressing" is, as I hardly think women who wear a dress to a party is potentially at risk of being raped any more than a person wearing long pants and a skivvy.
In both cases, at least to some extent. Be attentive to your surroundings. Men who dress to look well heeled and affluent are more likely to be targeted by pick pockets than someone who looks like a bum carrying a paper bag with his clothes in it. A gay guy in drag is going to get hassled on the street -- he can bank on it. A woman at a convention who is dressed in the style of local hookers (and may have positioned herself likewise) is likely to be approached for sex. On the other hand, women dressed in any style whatsoever are often propositioned on certain streets where hookers hang out.
Obviously, it isn't the case that these things should happen; it is the case that they do happen. It is also the case that women are raped without respect to what they were wearing. They might have had on Service Master coveralls, blue surgical scrubs, tight blue jeans and a sweat shirt, or a revealing gown. Or they might have been nuns in habits. They might have been 16, 47, or 85.
Women can dress in fishnets for however many reasons they can conjure. Perhaps they like dressing in fishnets. Perhaps they are going to a theme party. Perhaps they have the intention to bring back 3 guys back home and bang away the night. Not a single reason invoked could justify the attitude given to women when they do decide to dress sexy.
Whatever that reason may be, it's hers and hers alone. Dressing is not something that you do to the world, it's something you do to yourself. Maybe she wants attention. Or maybe her self-image is that of a beautiful sexual women and sometimes she likes to dress accordingly. You are preaching from a lack of imagination.
It' a moderated forum with guidelines which explicitly mention that sexism is not allowed. And we have to draw the line on that somewhere. But context will always be taken into consideration and warnings will be given except in extreme circumstances. I don't think it's any great sacrifice for people not to be overtly sexist or racist etc.
My God! That's moose turd pie.
It's good though.
That's true if you stay in your house. In the privacy of your own house you can dress like the great Whore of Babylon or the Queen Mother. It doesn't matter. BUT...
In public, clothing has public meanings. Sorry -- there just isn't any way around it. When I, as a man, have chosen to dress in proper business clothing, I will get a different response from various people in public than when I wear clothing appropriate to religious workers, or if I decide to dress in black leather chaps and a jock strap--nothing else underneath. Should I complain if a restaurant tells me I can NOT come in dressed in chaps and jock strap? Should I complain if my business attire gets me better service? Should I reject a little respect I get for looking like a religious? No. I asked for it, I got it.
A woman who decides to wear spike heels, fishnet stockings, a short skirt, and a halter top should expect a certain kind of public interpretation of her outfit (like at least "kind of in bad taste, dear"). Maybe if she is 15 she won't have figured this out. That's where parents come in. I'm not saying she deserves bad consequences for wearing such an outfit, but I deny her the freedom to wear it in public without others interpreting what it means.
Communication occurs in all sorts of forms. If my girlfriend who I haven't seen in a couple of weeks answers the door wearing negligee, I think she has communicated her desire through what she's wearing. Obviously, no one can communicate a desire for non-consensual anything because of the inherent logical contradiction of you communicating a desire of that which you don't desire. But, to your question, of course a woman (or anyone) can communicate through clothing. Wearing the dress you wore on your first date when it's your one year anniversary might mean to communicate your sticky sweet romanticism as might your wearing the dress you wore the first time you were intimate when you are now is big fight might mean to communicate something else. I could go on and on about this, but you get the point.
However, context matters. Any swim suit at a swimming pool reveals quite a lot, and that is considered normal and unremarkable. Surgical scrubs won't attract attention in a hospital, they will attract more attention at a formal dance. If your female surgeon came into the operating room for your operation in a ball gown, you'd probably wonder whether you were hallucinating.
People have to judge their surroundings. Clothing in public is simply not a strictly private matter. Of course, clothing neither prevents nor justifies rape.
Anyone is entitled to their judgements. Those judgements might also just be terrible and slanted by a retrograde morality with an unhealthy emphasis on condemning sexuality. If a girl wants to dress for sex, you shouldn't assume she's dressed for sex with you, or that she only dresses for sex.
Fuck the Dutch.
Stop hating on the frat boys.
"Sumptuary laws" used to govern whether peasants could wear pieces of fur or bright colored cloth. Generally they couldn't (this was before your time -- like... 13th century). Gradually they did anyway. it greatly annoyed those who had a lot of fur and bright colored cloth to wear.
Well, we don't have a lot of laws governing what people wear, but people are perfectly free to interpret what you have on. And they will, and do.
Have you ever had an experience where what you are attempting to convey has been misunderstood, perhaps further still have not been able to adequately communicate at all because what you say flies over the head of one intellectually beneath you or perhaps because they are of a different linguistic or cultural background? I am a friendly person and that friendliness has been misinterpreted as being flirtatious and not because I act in any flirtatious manner but it is because they found me attractive.
It is not just about communication, but also about understanding and interpretation and therefore how a person dresses can be interpreted by several men in completely different ways. Her desire could be a multitude of different things including, perhaps most of all, to impress or compete with other women and not for men. A rapist is a rapist, however which way a woman dresses, and if there is any need for change it is the culturally misogynistic notions that women enable consent by the clothes that they wear. Consensual acts and any symbolism between you and your girlfriend are irrelevant to this problem.
I personally understand the cultural aspects to dress; when I was in Tel Aviv, I dressed the same as I do in Australia because wearing shorts and dresses and bikinis is normal, girls everywhere wear it and there is no underlying assumptions, unlike, say, when I was in Jerusalem or Palestine. It does not, however, make it justifiable that any act of sexual violence is causally linked to the way a person dresses. On the other hand, acts of violence against women and in particular sexual violence is linked and can be correlated to paternalistic cultures with ingrained misogynistic values such as acid throwing or honour killings and therefore the problem is the underlying misogyny which itself could potentially be linked to rape.
I thought I was going crazy here; glad to hear from someone else who agrees.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes.
, , , see BT's response for a much more nuanced explanation of what I'm trying to get at.
No. Knowledge of morality is not predicated on shame.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No, shame does not work that way. Shame leads to secrecy; secrecy builds deeper shame, which builds deeper secrecy. Sexuality, specifically, is arguably the most intimate and delecate aspect of the human person, and any form of sexual exploitation with immediate consequences will always breed shame, which will breed secrecy, which will breed...
I don't know, because I never said "positive methods".
I don't get the sarcasm here. Maybe I'm a little slow.
Quoting unenlightened
Yes - that's a key component to my argument about shame; so I'm confused, because you seem to disagree with me, but here, you're bringing up an important element of my argument. I'm not too sure what you're getting at.
But I enumerated why I was confused why you thought that in my following description of our interaction. You really are insufferable sometimes.
Quoting Sapientia
Quite a privilege you have.
I don't think that, no.
Ah, sorry then, didn't want to put mouth in your mouth. :)
Did you mean "whereas" rather than "whereby"? Even if so, that distinction doesn't make sense because they're essentially the same thing; "victims knowing the perpetrator" vs. "rapists often being acquaintances or family members". So when you ask me to articulate how best to respond to the following remarks you quote, despite *the confusing info you subsequently list*, I just don't know how to respond. Additionally, I don't know how your response here was a response to what you quoted from me.
Quoting TimeLine
Yes, I agree. Those people exist on both "sides" of this debate.
The point is understanding an action is immoral is shame. It means one holding someone has a value of failure becasue of the action they have taken. To appeal to a better nature is to shame-- "you are a failure in this action and ought to behave better."
We don't have any appeals to better nature or understanding of a moral failing without shame. Those who act immorally, whether ourselves or someone else, are shameful.
Do you mean "The point is understanding that an action is immoral is shame"? If so, no the understanding does not equate to shame. That makes no sense.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
That's grammatically confusing.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
>:O
Say it plainly; I don't know what you mean.
You're a moderator?
Sorry I'm just feeling Shakespearean tonight.
Quoting Noble Dust
Immoderately, at times.
That's entirely tangential to the point though, as the issue here is not: "How do women handle men who would by them unwanted attention?" but rather that men pay them such attention in the first place.
Teaching women how to handle unwanted attention (whatever that entails) doesn't actually touch the point of concern, which is about how men understand women and how this entails harassment and abuse.
What is?
It's the literally definition: if I understand an action is immoral, I am ashamed for having taken it.
Teaching women how to handle unwanted attention from men. As discussed here:
"If you want to teach young men to respect young women as persons -- which of course is an eminently worthwhile goal, stick to positive methods. Young women need guidance too about how to interact with young men. And the same methods should be used: education, examples, modeling, peer group pressure."
— Bitter Crank
"Yes."
— Noble Dust
You, like good old Sappy, are also insufferable. You're contributing to toxic shame when you insult the people you disagree with; no where, unless I'm missing something, in this debate, have you actually brought an argument; you've just shamed those you disagree with by grossly insulting them (abusing your mod powers), and then you're confusingly coy with me, maybe because you think I agree with you. I'm not sure.
You are being obtuse and I don't give a rat's ass about your degree.
What?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Ok, here we have some common ground; great. The problem is that you insist that it's morally right for me to shame you when I see you acting immorally. On the contrary, only you can understand, as you say, your own immorality, thus feeling your own justly felt shame.
No, you didn't, BC did in the quote you had displayed before stating that his response has a much more nuanced explanation of what you were attempting to convey. You are intentionally being ungenerous.
Quoting Noble Dust
I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but if your intent is to try and win an argument by playing games like this, you don't deserve my time. What a shame.
True, when I said his response was more nuanced, I meant his entire post. I only quoted some of it for clarity. My understanding of what BC meant by positive methods was: the opposite of shame. Not shaming someone for having done wrong; instead, using "positive reinforcement".
Quoting TimeLine
No I'm not. You don't know my motives. Kindly don't assume to know them.
Quoting TimeLine
I honestly was confused by your sentence structure. Again, kindly don't assume to know my motives.
It doesn't matter how they feel; your gross insults are the stuff of shaming.
It can only be morally right for you to shame me (in the sense of pointing out I'm wrong and its seriousness); you are describing the moral significance of my actions. If I have acted moral and other people understand it, they will also be ashamed of me.
Then, if I have to be taught that I was immoral, that involves pointing out I should be ashamed and other should be assumed of me for my actions. To point out: "You have acted immorally. The way you understand and act towards people is abusive/wrong/evill..." is to shame me, both for myself (I ought to be ashamed of my actions) and for others (you ought to be ashamed of this person for acting immoral; don't do it yourself).
Without this, we literally can't recognise an immoral action, take issue with it or take action to reduce its prevalence.
My point is that your insults are the very stuff of shaming, and that they contribute to the problem.
Context does matter and the context of this discussion is about victims of sexual violence being culpable due to the clothing that they wear. You can give thousands of absurd scenarios vis-a-vis the way a person can dress (or not dress) to make your point, indeed I have already explained the variations of cultural values and my acknowledgement of and adherence to these values as a traveller, but it bears no significance on the sexually violent acts by a perpetrator. On the contrary, these ingrained culturally misogynistic values can easily be correlated to acts of violence against women, as seen for instance with acid throwing or rape as an act of punishment during war and therefore that is the problem. Whether a woman wears a dress or wears pants is irrelevant to consent and definitions of what is indecent is visible in the laws of each country; women in some Islamic countries where they are completely covered can either be socially ostracised or imprisoned if raped because it is their fault that they, uhm, that they... didn't cover their finger?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Now your entire "positive methods" appears to be even more confusing; whatever happened to "shaming"?
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Clearly...
My point is understanding someone is immoral is shaming; they are said to be wrong, to have negative value, to need to change their actions., such that it is never a positive experience for them.
To recognise immorality and take it seriously means being negative towards someone-- that they need to be replaced by a different action, way of living, etc. because their present is unacceptable.
You are still continuing? The question was about how to respond to such people as per the quotes I had attached without feeling any sense of agitation and remembering that most victims of rape are not those who walk around being sexually provocative but are women and children who actually know the perpetrator such as being acquaintances or family members. Whether it is your motive or not, you are being ungenerous and I have no time for dastardly responses.
This is a serious conversation that means something to people. Kindly remember that before posting your one liners in an attempt to destroy the actual legitimacy of this topic.
The reason I never have any idea what you're talking about is that your sentence structure, grammar, etc., never make sense. What does the word "barcode" mean in the above post, for instance? And I would never be so critical, except your posts are consistently like this; I feel as if I can almost ascertain what you're getting at, but then the grammatical failures and typos are so great that it just feels like a lost cause.
You seem to be having trouble understanding everyone.
So does this mean that insults are your only means to argument, then? Have you actually considered my arguments about shame?
That was a typo/autocorrect; it was meant to be "because."
I also call bullshit. There's no way I've made so many errors that I'm somehow utterly unintelligible. I've been making the point for about five posts now, only a couple of which had errors in in a section talking about how immorality equals negative value, amounting to a shaming those who commit immoral actions.
Yes? No? Continuing to point out that you're assuming to know my motives when you don't? Yes, I'm continuing.
Quoting TimeLine
I never addressed this; I always and only was making an argument about shame in this discussion.
Quoting TimeLine
Again, you assume it means less to me. You can't even imagine what this discussion means to me. You're assumption that I'm being ungenerous and that I don't care about the emotional component of this argument is not only egregiously offensive, it's downright sick, twisted, and shaming. That's all I've got, I was gonna respond to the rest of you posts, but I'm out of juice.
So you see my cause as a lost cause? Is that why you resort to insults and shame? That sounds defeatist.
"You" or "Your"? I am confused with what you are attempting to say; are you saying that I am sick, twisted and shaming because I said that you were being ungenerous for not actually responding to my question? So, is saying the word "ungenerous" shaming? But, "sick" and "twisted" is not?
Why not?
Back away...slowly...
I recall a discussion we had in which you were attempting to "change" someone you cared about, and were remonstrating about the difficulty of it; I was suggesting that attempting to change another person is a lost cause. I wish you well, and I gratefully shake the dust from the sandals of this ugly discussion.
I don't think I am; I'm trying to make clear to you that the legal consequence of your position is that a woman carries part of the blame (is a court would entertain the argument). So if you agree that outcome is incorrect and unjust, you will need to revisit your position.
I don't mean this as an insult, but literally every post of yours in this discussion has had typos that were confusing, and I've found that to be the case in most discussions with you.
Why would you shame Willow like that?
:-}
(Y) I think you are articulating yourself perfectly.
To which I say: so? How does that justify claiming nothing I've written make any sense, given there we whole section about he topic which didn't have typo? Especially given other people have been making posts on the same topic to which your response has been the same. Suffice to say: it's not my typos which at fault here.
What's insulting isn't that you would point out my typos or be confused by them (or even attack me for the typos making my post more confusing than they ought to be) it's that you would claim this somehow means nothing I've made any sense or I'm not saying anything intelligible. It's either lazy or outright malicious. You either can't be bothered to think in the terms that I'm making a point or are deliberately ignoring what I am saying to claim a supposed rhetorical victory.
"You made some type, so I can't understand part of what you've written" is not an argument identifying meaninglessness or logical incoherence in any universe.
Reading through the typos here, I think I get the gist; and no, when I'm able to read through the typos, I'm able to make sense of what you're saying, but when I'm not able to read through the typos, then no, I'm not able to make sense of what you're saying. That's why typos are a problem.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Do you mean "some typos"?
Your entire post above is riddled with typos.
Confusion is often a preferred state of consciousness...
Agreed. But moderation is key methinks.
Since you edited your post from "ok, bye." to this, I'll give it a shot.
What was the reason? The idea of not being able to change people?
What does "those who shame by not shaming in return" refer to? I'm imagining someone being shamed, then not shaming the person who shamed them. And that's the person you're asking me how to respond to, right?
Quoting TimeLine
Which is?
Sure. No argument from me there.
The problem is you then running to conclusions or implications that I'm not saying anything, simply because you haven't been able to understand (whether it be because of typos or not).
You clearly didn't read my last post (or are ignoring it). I absolutely agreed the typos were a problem. Why are you acting like I said otherwise? Why are you pretending I wasn't talking about a problem of assuming someone had said nothing becasue you didn't understand them?
Actually, confusion is best as a state accepted, but then warred against...leading to more confusion...but the war, it seems, is the key...???
So can we call it a fact or what?
Ok, at this point I'm so confused that maybe you could just re-state the general argument you're making about shame, in as little words as possible? And, given "as little words as possible", no typos? Again, I don't mean that as an insult. I honestly just don't have a good idea of what you're argument is at this point.
call what a fact??
Hey Posty, come to Australia. My employer needs employees rather desperately and we can hang out together talking philosophy in the corner of the office as we pretend to do work. What say you?
Oh that would be lovely. I'm afraid I'm not qualified enough though. No degree and all. Still living on welfare, not very sexy and all.
I’ve gone through about three different arguments with you so far, but I’ll return to the first one because I think it's the one you mean.
The argument was immoral actions are shameful. Identifying them means making a person who takes them a subject of shame, both in terms of the themselves and with respect to anyone who recognises the immorality of their actions.
To be immoral is to have negative value, someone who is wrong, someone who needs to change their ways. There is no "positive means" to talk about this because you are literally saying someone's actions or understanding needs to no longer exist.
To understand and identify immoral action means pointing out someone has negative value, it is to shame them.
If we are taking immorality seriously, rather than either excusing it or ignoring it, we shame people who partake it it.
I disagree; immoral actions aren't shameful; they're immoral. An immoral action isn't moral; it breaks the given moral code; it's immoral. Shame, however, is an emotion. When I commit an immoral action, shame may or may not be involved. Shame is: the acknowledgement of an immoral act, followed by a sense of taboo; not only was the act immoral, but the act is something that should not be talked about or brought up. I.E. rape, molestation, incest, visiting prostitutes, viewing taboo porn...
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
This is another problem with your view; it's self-fulfilling; someone who has negative value is inherently shameful; shame perpetuates their negative value.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No; there is a positive means; the positive means is to appeal to the nobler, more human nature of the perpetrator.
I also think that all you need is the passion to want to improve. Everything is will.
Nah, wallowing is what I do best.
Well, that's why I said you've not understood what shame is in this context nor what is being shamed.
Shame in this thread is exactly the opposite of what you suggest. We aren't saying no-one should talk about the shameful actions, just the opposite: we talking about them and how they are wrong at length.
Then you are coming in and saying we can't talk about this, like there ought to be some taboo on pointing out the shameful nature of the objectification and abuse of women.
Funny, since I brought the topic up in this thread.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I agree; we should talk about shame; that's what breaks the vice of the secrecy of shame.
I'm talking about the shame you brought up: the various attacks that people in this thread had toxic understandings and behaviours.
That's not hiding a topic away under a taboo. It's talking proudly talking about it in the open. The shame attacked is literally the opposite of trying to keep the issue under the rug.
Immorality and shame are not the same thing, but shame is an emotional byproduct of immoral behavior. If someone doesn't feel ashamed of immoral things they do or say, we call those people sociopaths or psychopaths. In your view, what emotion should someone feel when they commit immoral acts? And to be clear, I(and I'd guess Willow) am not arguing that shame should be a permanent state, but upon recognition of one's own immorality, shame is a good and natural emotion.
That's not "the shame I brought up".
Yes, it is. You directly attacked SLX, Timeline, baden (and maybe me; I can't remember if I had joined at that point) for daring to shame sexism in this thread.