Society/Culture Feminism - Pt III

[Deliverance]

And the Canadian flag?!?

He was so far off with his first stat, has no references, hasn't considered the possibility of under reporting of female homelessness. I'm not gonna bother going any further.
Bit like if I went to a mechanic for my car and first thing he says is "nice bike". I know that guy's not worth my time.

 

[Fadge]

He was so far off with his first stat, has no references, hasn't considered the possibility of under reporting of female homelessness. I'm not gonna bother going any further.
Bit like if I went to a mechanic for my car and first thing he says is "nice bike". I know that guy's not worth my time.

But you decided to respond with stats that obviously weren't like for like in a poor attempt to discredit him?

 

[Fadge]

He was so far off with his first stat, has no references, hasn't considered the possibility of under reporting of female homelessness. I'm not gonna bother going any further.
Bit like if I went to a mechanic for my car and first thing he says is "nice bike". I know that guy's not worth my time.

So just as an example. CHAIN is a UK agency focussing on homelessness data, and here is what they published in a 2014 report (the last Annual Report that appears to be publicly available).

So given you were quoting 2011, 2014 and 2015 data, this is an equivalent from a different region.

It would also be reasonable to suggest he was referring to 'rough sleeping' with the homelessness statistic.

 

[Hawk_francais]

The bolded isn't grooming, the desire to protect the tribe/village is baked into our DNA. The grooming is trying to force men to deny these instincts, and for women to deny their own instincts.

Ah yes the evolutionary argument, so watertight. Especially as we argue here on our lithium-powered devices using a digital forum on the internet, just as nature intended.

 

[MrKK]

Ah yes the evolutionary argument, so watertight. Especially as we argue here on our lithium-powered devices using a digital forum on the internet, just as nature intended.

Yep, highly-developed brains, opposable thumbs, curiosity and inventiveness are also in our DNA. Way to avoid/miss the point though.

 

[Hawk_francais]

Yep, highly-developed brains, opposable thumbs, curiosity and inventiveness are also in our DNA. Way to avoid/miss the point though.

You're suggesting that the women's rights movement is against our human DNA. It's the stupidest argument in the book, and its rationality leads to nothing but eugenics. On a more technical level, modern science doesn't have anywhere near a full understanding of human DNA. Why does psychology exist if we can just decode everybody's fears and desires from their genes?

Many men do seem to possess the instinct to gather resources and be a guardian, likewise many women long to keep a home and raise children. That is no basis to take away people's self-determination by projecting those roles on to every man and woman that you meet.

 

[Deliverance]

But you decided to respond with stats that obviously weren't like for like in a poor attempt to discredit him?

So just as an example. CHAIN is a UK agency focussing on homelessness data, and here is what they published in a 2014 report (the last Annual Report that appears to be publicly available).
View attachment 884522
So given you were quoting 2011, 2014 and 2015 data, this is an equivalent from a different region.

It would also be reasonable to suggest he was referring to 'rough sleeping' with the homelessness statistic.

No, he said homelessness, with an Aussie flag attached, so what I debunked him with is exactly like for like. Speaking of unrelated stats. That's what you've done, with a whole other nationality and a different category. But if you feel the need to support his position with Canadian "homelessness" stats. I'm all ears.

 

[Fadge]

No, he said homelessness, with an Aussie flag attached, so what I debunked him with is exactly like for like. Speaking of unrelated stats. That's what you've done, with a whole other nationality and a different category. But if you feel the need to support his position with Canadian "homelessness" stats. I'm all ears.

You're a friggin lunatic.

His twitter username has both an Australian AND Canadian flag; there is no correlation between this and the statistics he quoted.

Yet, you make the leap to reference ONLY Australian stats, calling him out as a 'twitter troll' on the basis his stats don't match yours, when you don't even know what stats he was referring to.

Come on.

 

[Deliverance]

You're a friggin lunatic.

His twitter username has both an Australian AND Canadian flag; there is no correlation between this and the statistics he quoted.

Yet, you make the leap to reference ONLY Australian stats, calling him out as a 'twitter troll' on the basis his stats don't match yours, when you don't even know what stats he was referring to.

Come on.

Of course he's a twitter troll. His stats aren't referenced anywhere. He's just expecting people like snake to blindly trust in them. Or people like you to commit some mental gymnastics and say "maybe he was referring to rough sleeping" despite him specifically using the term homeless.

 

[Fadge]

Of course he's a twitter troll. His stats aren't referenced anywhere. He's just expecting people like snake to blindly trust in them. Or people like you to commit some mental gymnastics and say "maybe he was referring to rough sleeping" despite him specifically using the term homeless.

You just keep comparing apples with oranges and call people trolls because the outcomes are different.

Standard MO for your type.

 

[Deliverance]

You just keep comparing apples with oranges and call people trolls because the outcomes are different.

Standard MO for your type.

You do realise you're the one who compared two different things right?

 

[Fadge]

You do realise you're the one who compared two different things right?

What were you comparing with, and calling someone a troll because your outcomes don't match?

I may have been closer than you when it comes to comparing apples with apples, but who knows.

I wasn't the one labelling someone a troll. It's such a lazy retort.

 

[MrKK]

You're suggesting that the women's right's movement is against our human DNA. It's the stupidest argument in the book, and it's rationality leads to nothing but eugenics. On a more technical level, modern science doesn't have anywhere near a full understanding of human DNA. Why does psychology exist if we can just decode everybody's fears and desires from their genes?

Many men do seem to possess the instinct to gather resources and be a guardian, likewise many women long to keep a home and raise children. That is no basis to take away people's self-determination by projecting those roles on to every man and woman that you meet.

It's not literally DNA, but the subconscious instincts that have generated consistency in traditional gender roles across all cultures and races.

I'm not trying to take away anyone's self-determination; it's the people who want to 'smash the patriarchy' or criticise women who choose to stay at home as betraying feminism who do that. People can choose to live how they want, just don't be surprised when so many conform to the traditional gender roles their instincts dictate to them.

The guilt that some women feel not being the nurturer, or the emasculation some men feel when they are not the provider isn't imposed by society; it's the internal dissonance between their conscious choices and subconscious.

 

[NonPhixion]

Ford is a good example of everything wrong with this world

 

[Hawk_francais]

It's not literally DNA, but the subconscious instincts that have generated consistency in traditional gender roles across all cultures and races.

I'm not trying to take away anyone's self-determination; it's the people who want to 'smash the patriarchy' or criticise women who choose to stay at home as betraying feminism who do that. People can choose to live how they want, just don't be surprised when so many conform to the traditional gender roles their instincts dictate to them.

The guilt that some women feel not being the nurturer, or the emasculation some men feel when they are not the provider isn't imposed by society; it's the internal dissonance between their conscious choices and subconscious.

Ahh yes, the 'subconscious'. A term not found in any psychology book. A process can be either conscious or unconscious. Subconscious is a mythical third state of mind for explaining auras and telepathy.

You're trying to confine masculinity to primitive instincts. It won't work, because masculinity is something anyone can experience. Argue with it all you like, but many women have positive experiences of masculinity, just as some men are effeminate and happy. You can tell them that they are experiencing internal dissonance all you want, but how do you explain their contentment?

Shock, horror, the answer must be that people are different. Those differences should be tolerated and accounted for by pluralistic, secular societies. We should question and even ignore traditions when they oppress others for our comfort. As for your line about all these people who criticise stay-at-home mothers for betraying feminism... where are they? I'm on the SRP forum and I don't see any thread titled: "Maternal traitors killing feminism", instead I see Feminism part 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,8a,8b etc. Either give an example or don't talk crap.

Plenty of feminist thought I disagree with, but your arguments don't make sense. If we followed your genetic instinct theory, we wouldn't have a civilisation let alone women's rights.

 

[Fadge]

Ahh yes, the 'subconscious'. A term not found in any psychology book. A process can be either conscious or unconscious. Subconscious is a mythical third state of mind for explaining auras and telepathy.

You're trying to confine masculinity to primitive instincts. It won't work, because masculinity is something anyone can experience. Argue with it all you like, but many women have positive experiences of masculinity, just as some men are effeminate and happy. You can tell them that they are experiencing internal dissonance all you want, but how do you explain their contentment?

Shock, horror, the answer must be that people are different. Those differences should be tolerated and accounted for by pluralistic, secular societies. We should question and even ignore traditions when they oppress others for our comfort. As for your line about all these people who criticise stay-at-home mothers for betraying feminism... where are they? I'm on the SRP forum and I don't see any thread titled: "Maternal traitors killing feminism", instead I see Feminism part 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,8a,8b etc. Either give an example or don't talk crap.

Plenty of feminist thought I disagree with, but your arguments don't make sense. If we followed your genetic instinct theory, we wouldn't have a civilisation let alone women's rights.

Suggest it's your arguments that don't make sense.

MrKKK's 'many' is the overwhelming majority, whilst your 'many' is an underwhelming minority.

And yet you have a crack at him for 'talking crap'.

At least it's better than the standard MO or your type, where you label others 'trolls' because they don't agree with you...

By the way, here's your first example - the title of the article 'It should be illegal to be a stay-at-home mum'...

Redirect Notice

 

[Snake_Baker]

Ah yes the evolutionary argument, so watertight. Especially as we argue here on our lithium-powered devices using a digital forum on the internet, just as nature intended.

Indeed.

You need to cease putting blind faith in postmodernist bullshit.

 

[Deliverance]

What were you comparing with, and calling someone a troll because your outcomes don't match?

I may have been closer than you when it comes to comparing apples with apples, but who knows.

I wasn't the one labelling someone a troll. It's such a lazy retort.

Calling someone a troll when they post unsubstantiated claims on social media that serve to trivialise issues pertaining to a sector of the community. I'm proud to do that.
As for the rest. Think I'll disengage at this point. When you understand the difference between rough sleeping and homelessness come back to me. Also, look in to the reasons behind the under representation of women in rough sleeping figures.
Have a good day.

 

[the_interloper]

Ah yes the evolutionary argument, so watertight. Especially as we argue here on our lithium-powered devices using a digital forum on the internet, just as nature intended.

How long have these devices been around and how long have humans had these instincts?

 

[Fadge]

Calling someone a troll when they post unsubstantiated claims on social media that serve to trivialise issues pertaining to a sector of the community. I'm proud to do that.
As for the rest. Think I'll disengage at this point. When you understand the difference between rough sleeping and homelessness come back to me. Also, look in to the reasons behind the under representation of women in rough sleeping figures.
Have a good day.

Nah, you called him a troll on the basis that his figures were different to yours, despite your comparison of apples to oranges.

But you go on living in your deluded world where you think you're being a good corporate citizen, despite the reality being quite the opposite.

 

[Deliverance]

Nah, you called him a troll on the basis that his figures were different to yours, despite your comparison of apples to oranges.

But you go on living in your deluded world where you think you're being a good corporate citizen, despite the reality being quite the opposite.

When you understand the difference between rough sleeping and homelessness come back to me. Also, look in to the reasons behind the under representation of women in rough sleeping figures.

 

[the_interloper]

When you understand the difference between rough sleeping and homelessness come back to me. Also, look in to the reasons behind the under representation of women in rough sleeping figures.

What is the difference between rough sleeping and being homeless? I figured being homeless meant you were sleeping rough?

 

[Deliverance]

What is the difference between rough sleeping and being homeless? I figured being homeless meant you were sleeping rough?

Rough sleepers are just a subset of the homeless population. To focus just on them ignores all the other homeless people.
A bit like Tigers players are a subset of AFL players. To focus just on the Tigers players, ignores the other 17 clubs.

 

[the_interloper]

Rough sleepers are just a subset of the homeless population. To focus just on them ignores all the other homeless people.
A bit like Tigers players are a subset of AFL players. To focus just on the Tigers players, ignores the other 17 clubs.

So it ignores a homeless person who gets to crash on someone's couch or something?

 

[Deliverance]

So it ignores a homeless person who gets to crash on someone's couch or something?

Yes, or boarding houses, or supported accomodation etc