Well done, feminism. Now men are afraid to help women at work

Star Forge wrote:

Jamie Stick wrote:

Star Forge wrote:

Jamie Stick wrote: The fact that I use logic to tear apart people's shoddy reasoning and emotional appeals is solipsistic?

Spare me. I read that entire gun thread. I'm acquainted with your way of doing things.

Look, if it makes things easier for you you can continue to play the indignant victim I'm good with that, but at the end of the day I don't have to resort to insults and that says to me that your argument has no substance.

What argument? I'm not even in on this discussion (nor really the last one, for that matter). I'm just saying I find you obnoxious. That's all.

You're right, you haven't put forth an argument, but you haven't exactly hidden where you stand either.

Star Forge wrote:
Every time a feminist thread comes up, Ren always swoops in to save the day.

I salute you, dude.

Star Forge wrote: Non sequitur.

TROLOLOLOLO

Just kidding. You pretty much summed it up. This thread reminded me to buy an NRA membership this morning.

But honestly? I get it. You don't like what you believe to be true being dismissed with logic, right? You're annoyed and because you appear to have nothing of value to add to the conversation, you decide to try to knock me down a peg, is that it?

But I'll let you in on a little secret, by doing so you only prove my point further. You only demonstrate there is nothing to this argument than smoke and mirrors. There is no logic, it's simply men having a knee-jerk reaction to finally having the attention drawn to the things they do wrong against women.

ren wrote:

Jamie Stick wrote:

ren wrote: Choosing to be a father and choosing to be a mother are false equivalences?

I don't know about parental roles

Then you should not have compared them to something they can't be compared to.

But I didn't! I was pointing out they aren't equivalent earlier.

SeventhSL wrote:

Br. John wrote: The decision to terminate a pregnancy should be solely between the pregnant woman, her conscience and her doctor.

So zero choice = zero child support?

I do not understand. Would you please elaborate or give a hypothetical example?

Whyte Horse wrote: I think it's obvious that men are better than women by now. It's also obvious that women are better than men. And by women I mean people with vajeejees and by men I mean people with peepees. Now if you happen to have a peepee and are a woman then men-women are better than women-men. So is that clear?

Ah yes, clearly, because you have nothing to contribute to the conversation except hate so you make highly antagonistic statements to get a rise out of people.

I can't decide which is more sad, that you feel the need to do this or that you don't realize eventually people will figure out what a tired refrain this childish behavior is and stop listening to what you have to say.

In formal logic and rhetoric, this tactic is called a red herring (but specific to your degendering it may also be considered an ad hominem: the two often overlap). A red herring is a question or comment made which does not address the issue at hand, it distracts or detracts from the main point. At this point, the opponent is revealing that they have nothing of substance with which to argue their point.

Jamie Stick wrote:

Star Forge wrote:

Jamie Stick wrote:

Star Forge wrote:

Jamie Stick wrote: The fact that I use logic to tear apart people's shoddy reasoning and emotional appeals is solipsistic?

Spare me. I read that entire gun thread. I'm acquainted with your way of doing things.

Look, if it makes things easier for you you can continue to play the indignant victim I'm good with that, but at the end of the day I don't have to resort to insults and that says to me that your argument has no substance.

What argument? I'm not even in on this discussion (nor really the last one, for that matter). I'm just saying I find you obnoxious. That's all.

You're right, you haven't put forth an argument, but you haven't exactly hidden where you stand either.

Star Forge wrote:
Every time a feminist thread comes up, Ren always swoops in to save the day.

I salute you, dude.

Star Forge wrote: Non sequitur.

TROLOLOLOLO

Just kidding. You pretty much summed it up. This thread reminded me to buy an NRA membership this morning.

But honestly? I get it. You don't like what you believe to be true being dismissed with logic, right? You're annoyed and because you appear to have nothing of value to add to the conversation, you decide to try to knock me down a peg, is that it?

But I'll let you in on a little secret, by doing so you only prove my point further. You only demonstrate there is nothing to this argument than smoke and mirrors. There is no logic, it's simply men having a knee-jerk reaction to finally having the attention drawn to the things they do wrong against women.

No, I'm fine with your position on either issue and if I cared about either argument I would take your points into consideration. All I am saying is that your repetitious deployment of the "non sequitur" mantra to begin a post (in response to the founder of this order, no less), sort of pissed me off. That's it. It's not your positions that offend me but (what appears to me as) your arrogance and the way you articulate your points.

AGAIN, I repeat, I did not really involve myself in this thread or the other. I'm against feminism, but my wife's not a feminist, so it doesn't affect me. As for the gun control argument- it's one that I've had numerous times, over many years. Pro-gun people make the same arguments that have been made since day one, as do gun control advocates. Your arguments in that thread, as well as those of the other side, are nothing new. I've weighed the facts and I have decided my views on the subject, as have you.

So no, I am not offended or threatened by any information you have put here. Rather, I have decided, based on the way that you write and the inferences that I have made thereof, that I strongly dislike you as a person, that's all.

To all members of this order/site: sorry I've started s*** on your forum again. I will do my best to amend my ways.

Star Forge wrote:
No, I'm fine with your position on either issue and if I cared about either argument I would take your points into consideration. All I am saying is that your repetitious deployment of the "non sequitur" mantra to begin a post (in response to the founder of this order, no less)

When and where? I'm genuinely curious because I looked for it and couldn't find such a response. Secondly, why should the founder get a pass on using logic? If I make exemptions for the founder, who else must I make exemptions for or are you specifically taking issue with the way I point out errors in reasoning? If others can't be bothered to put any effort into putting together a well-reasoned argument, why should I bother writing a lengthy reply when the phrase, "non sequitur" sums up the problem with their argument? It's not a lack of respect, but rather a quid pro quo approach. I'm not going to waste my effort on someone who spent absolutely zero effort trying to demonstrate why their position is critically superior. If you look through the thread you'll notice that I rather enjoyed when people challenged me and gave more detailed responses where an argument of quality was present.

Star Forge wrote: Rather, I have decided, based on the way that you write and the inferences that I have made thereof, that I strongly dislike you as a person, that's all.

I would say the feeling is mutual, but I don't trust your reasoning since you seem to be swayed more by those who uphold your own beliefs than by anything of substance. I don't dislike you, I just don't take you seriously which is why I'm heavily skeptical of the statement below:

Star Forge wrote: I will do my best to amend my ways.

There is no reason the flounder should get a pass on logic, spelling, or anything else. Br. John has one vote on The Council and the right to be on it. That's the extent of the privileges. There's no pope-like powers or the like.

Well, he does have a theme song.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53142837/Brother_John.mp3



B. Kliban

Br. John wrote:

SeventhSL wrote:

Br. John wrote: The decision to terminate a pregnancy should be solely between the pregnant woman, her conscience and her doctor.

So zero choice = zero child support?

I do not understand. Would you please elaborate or give a hypothetical example?

I am by no means judging your belief but I am simply trying to understand it. Specifically if you intend to have gender equality when one gender has all the choice and the other gender must pay for that choice. Is the concession for giving the woman the complete power of choice, giving the man complete power over his choice to be financially responsible?

For example: Let us say that a man and a woman come together and start a creative process that will result in the life of a new human. During this process they both provide genetic material which is necessary to the creative process. Let us also say, that in this example, the continuation of the creative process does not carry any high risk medical consequences to any party. With this foundation let me now branch the example into two different directions.

1. The man is pro life and wishes to let the creative process run its course. He is willing to take sole responsibility for the new life including complete financial burden. For her own reasons the woman simply does not wish to let the creative process continue and can terminate it without any consent of the man.

2. The woman is prolife and wishes to let the creative process run its course. For his own reasons the man simply does not wish to let the creative process continue but the woman can continue it without any consent of the man.

I do not see gender equality in the above especially if in branch 2 the man must then bear a heavy long term financial commitment without choice. I can see many ways to provide gender equality but none where sole right to continue/terminate the creative process resides with one gender alone.

Perhaps I am looking for equal rights and gender equality where you do not intend any to exist. Perhaps this is why I am struggling to understand your belief. I am by no means judging your belief but I am simply trying to understand it.

SeventhSL wrote: 1. The man is pro life and wishes to let the creative process run its course. He is willing to take sole responsibility for the new life including complete financial burden. For her own reasons the woman simply does not wish to let the creative process continue and can terminate it without any consent of the man.

I dont think you can write off the medical risk as not being a real attribute of pregnancy for the women, so I guess he could pay her for the risk and hardship of the pregnancy in this case, as part of that concept of "complete financial burden". But it would still seem up to her, because its her body and the child is within her.... possession being 9/10th's of the law and all that
:S :side:
And obviously the unborn baby dies without the mother but the father has no further involvement during the pregnancy, in biological terms. Plus its not really a 50/50 split as while the father and mother share the DNA, the mitochondrial DNA is from the mother and the unborn child can take on epigenetic settings from the mother's experiences during pregnancy;

"In a recent study investigating correlations among maternal stress in pregnancy and methylation in teenagers and their mothers, it has been found that children of women who were abused during pregnancy were significantly more likely than others to have methylated glucocorticoid-receptor genes, which in turn change the response to stress, leading to a higher susceptibility to anxiety [in the child from abuse of the mother while pregnant]." source

SeventhSL wrote: 2. The woman is prolife and wishes to let the creative process run its course. For his own reasons the man simply does not wish to let the creative process continue but the woman can continue it without any consent of the man.

The man's involvement in pregnancy is only at the beginning, and this is where his capacity to decide exists, in real terms. With the female, the commitment is ongoing no matter her preference during the progress of the pregnancy - so she can decide at any point as her involvement 'is' the pregnancy.

She does not just 'carry' a child, she 'gestates' a child.

But the important distinction here is that pregnancy and child rearing are different topics. The pregnancy is the 9 or so month ordeal of the mother and child started by the mother and father. The child support financial burden is not compensation for being pregnant, its assistance to raise the child and to compensate for the demands placed on the primary carer for approaching 20 years.

Jamie Stick wrote: When and where? I'm genuinely curious because I looked for it and couldn't find such a response. Secondly, why should the founder get a pass on using logic? If I make exemptions for the founder, who else must I make exemptions for or are you specifically taking issue with the way I point out errors in reasoning? If others can't be bothered to put any effort into putting together a well-reasoned argument, why should I bother writing a lengthy reply when the phrase, "non sequitur" sums up the problem with their argument? It's not a lack of respect, but rather a quid pro quo approach. I'm not going to waste my effort on someone who spent absolutely zero effort trying to demonstrate why their position is critically superior. If you look through the thread you'll notice that I rather enjoyed when people challenged me and gave more detailed responses where an argument of quality was present.

If your not willing to discuss do not post, pretty straight up and simple truth. Its insulting to everyone in the thread, so either stop insulting people whom you feel superior to or enter the thread with the mindset of using language to draw out a proper discussion and argument from them. Further, a non sequitur argument implies an incomplete logic chain which is missing a key piece to arrive at a conclusion. Because this discussion is ethics the logic chain can contain facts, as well as human emotions. Now your statements make you seem quite silly and foolish if you cannot merely point out what that one final logic piece is. Now I did mention that ethics involves emotions specifically because in a discussion of ethics if there is a fundamental difference in certain first principle feelings then the logic structures either side will present will appear to be flawed and therefore the first step would be to discuss the ground feelings to arrive at some degree of consensus of "terms" in order to facilitate higher discussion.

Summed up: If your not interested in discussion don't post. Please don't troll people, please do not insult people with snooty language that ultimately evaluates to "I think your stupid."

SeventhSL wrote: I do not see gender equality in the above especially if in branch 2 the man must then bear a heavy long term financial commitment without choice. I can see many ways to provide gender equality but none where sole right to continue/terminate the creative process resides with one gender alone.

I do believe that a person can legally waive all parental rights in order to be freed of any financial or other responsibilities for the child. This is a legal procedure that almost every male (including myself until quite recently) is unaware is possible. Unfortunately each state sets its own standards concerning reasonable cause to waive parental rights and because the term "reasonable cause" is involved males still can be leashed financially for what ultimately is the female's choice if he isn't clever about presenting his reasoning. It certainly is unfair.

I think the biggest problem with the legal structure involving the relationships of men and women today is that we have inherited it from an era where women didn't and generally could not find work. So the law was structured to prevent them from being used and abandoned. However, those protections are silly in an era of equal right to work (non discrimination laws) but the structures remain, including alimony and child support. We really need to remove those sort of requirements that produce silly results such as female divorcees of rich men who get millions a year in alimony payments to "support them."