Society/Culture Feminism - Pt III

[Fadge]

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.

My Lord your analogies are pathetic.

The ABS have three main categories of homelessness - those in boarding houses, those in supported accommodation, and those who sleep rough.

This is by no means a globally aligned definition.

Would it be outside the realms of possibility that the layperson would consider someone homeless only if they do not have a roof over their head? (i.e. sleeping rough)

I know you wouldn't, because it wouldn't enable you to label someone a troll by providing stats that support your argument, regardless as to whether or not it is aligned to their perspective on the situation.

 

[Deliverance]

My Lord your analogies are pathetic.

The ABS have three main categories of homelessness - those in boarding houses, those in supported accommodation, and those who sleep rough.

This is by no means a globally aligned definition.

Would it be outside the realms of possibility that the layperson would consider someone homeless only if they do not have a roof over their head? (i.e. sleeping rough)

I know you wouldn't, because it wouldn't enable you to label someone a troll by providing stats that support your argument, regardless as to whether or not it is aligned to their perspective on the situation.

I would expect someone pushing a public agenda to provide evidence of their claims. If not, in 2020, they are open to being called a troll. Simples.

 

[Taylor]

It's getting pretty hard to use stats to back up a position when the stats need to be backed up and qualified first.

Take the poverty line for example, that's a minefield - not an actual minefield like they have in places with poverty but a social minefield like they have in discussions waiting in line for free healthcare, schooling and welfare payments like we have here and I think that makes our type of minefield worse because everyone is always going through it.

Just some bad political commentary comedy for you.
*tap tap*

 

[Fadge]

I would expect someone pushing a public agenda to provide evidence of their claims. If not, in 2020, they are open to being called a troll. Simples.

Yep, of course they are.

It is such a simple, unintelligent retort.

The equivalent of 'I know you are, so what am I' when I was growing up...

 

[Deliverance]

Yep, of course they are.

It is such a simple, unintelligent retort.

The equivalent of 'I know you are, so what am I' when I was growing up...

Or the equivalent of a university lecturer asking me to provide evidence of my opinions when I was growing up.

 

[Taylor]

Or the equivalent of a university lecturer asking me to provide evidence of my opinions when I was growing up.

I think everyone could write a report based off primary source news that said ying, and then use a different set of reports for the same event that said yang and write a report on that.

I think we need to consider the 24 hour news cycle an editorial opinion expression until further notice.

 

[Fadge]

Or the equivalent of a university lecturer asking me to provide evidence of my opinions when I was growing up.

Another superb analogy.

University paper versus comment on twitter.

 

[Deliverance]

I think everyone could write a report based off primary source news that said ying, and then use a different set of reports for the same event that said yang and write a report on that.

I think we need to consider the 24 hour news cycle an editorial opinion expression until further notice.

Absolutely, that's why people need to look beyond the headlines and tweets to see if there's any substance there.

 

[Hawk_francais]

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

Quote from the article:

“it is the mother who opts to take time off work during this period to solely focus on caring for her baby. Once again, there is nothing wrong with this.”

Grab your pitchforks, the feminists have breached the castle.

Since my arguments don’t make sense to you, Ill ask you not to reply to them. I’ve had enough of your enlightened views in other threads.

 

[Hawk_francais]

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

Point being?

Should we cast them to the wind, as we should our efforts towards an egalitarian society?

 

[Hawk_francais]

Indeed.

You need to cease putting blind faith in postmodernist bullshit.

Im the postmodernist? All you do is post memes and tweets alongside graphs and statistics without ever providing any source or context.

You are the Deleuze of this forum.

 

[Fadge]

Quote from the article:

“it is the mother who opts to take time off work during this period to solely focus on caring for her baby. Once again, there is nothing wrong with this.”

Grab your pitchforks, the feminists have breached the castle.

Since my arguments don’t make sense to you, Ill ask you not to reply to them. I’ve had enough of your enlightened views in other threads.

Oh here we go. Let's take one paragraph from the article and quote it, taking zero consideration of the context in which it was written.

Why would we expect anything different?

What are your thoughts on this paragraph:


Or this one:


What a friggin intellectual giant you are

 

[the_interloper]

Point being?

Should we cast them to the wind, as we should our efforts towards an egalitarian society?

You didn't answer my questions, you first.

 

[Hawk_francais]

Oh here we go. Let's take one paragraph from the article and quote it, taking zero consideration of the context in which it was written.

Why would we expect anything different?

What are your thoughts on this paragraph:
View attachment 884972

Or this one:
View attachment 884973

What a friggin intellectual giant you are

Two things:

1. One article from 3 years ago does not a movement make.

2. This writer is obviously quite conservative, she talks about how Tony Abbott was grossly misunderstood and criticized as minister for women. She’s not exactly a radical feminist.

Do radical feminists feel betrayed by stay at home mothers? I don’t hear them saying that. Rather it seems its only the Thatcherite economic rationalists who say anything of the sort.

 

[Hawk_francais]

You didn't answer my questions, you first.

You want to know how long computer devices have been capable of communicating through the internet? Forgive me for taking it as a rhetorical question.

 

[Fadge]

Two things:

1. One article from 3 years ago does not a movement make.

2. This writer is obviously quite conservative, she talks about how Tony Abbott was grossly misunderstood and criticized as minister for women. She’s not exactly a radical feminist.

Do radical feminists feel betrayed by stay at home mothers? I don’t hear them saying that. Rather it seems its only the Thatcherite economic rationalists who say anything of the sort.

Ah, let's backpedal now... yet another standard behaviour from your type.

Who said anything about a 'movement'? You disputed it happened at all. So you asked for an example. That is, 'an' equals 'one'. You got it.

To help you out, here is exactly what you wrote:

 

[Hawk_francais]

Ah, let's backpedal now... yet another standard behaviour from your type.

Who said anything about a 'movement'? You disputed it happened at all. So you asked for an example. That is, 'an' equals 'one'. You got it.

To help you out, here is exactly what you wrote:

View attachment 885168

What I wrote was actually in the context of a conversation with someone else. Here's the extract:

"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."

So the problem is that the example you've found: it is someone who is critical of stay-at-home mothers, but it's not someone who wants to 'smash the patriarchy'.

I'll just backpedal off somewhere else, because you really are the most annoying person on this whole forum. All semantics, very little substance except being an invariable conservative sycophant in every thread.

 

[Fadge]

I'll just backpedal off somewhere else, because you really are the most annoying person on this whole forum. All semantics, very little substance except being an invariable conservative sycophant in every thread.

Maybe if you didn't talk down to everyone you disagree with, you wouldn't have people lining up to shoot holes in your baseless arguments.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Im the postmodernist? All you do is post memes and tweets alongside graphs and statistics without ever providing any source or context.

You are the Deleuze of this forum.

If you need me to supply sources & context then you're clearly intellectually beneath the audience that I am targeting.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Maybe if you didn't talk down to everyone you disagree with, you wouldn't have people lining up to shoot holes in your baseless arguments.

Don't mistake the manufactured projection of intelligence with actual intelligence.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Men = things, women = people.

Does anyone wanna challenge the fact that these are "general" biological traits?



U.S. Bureau of Labor & Statistics

 

[Snake_Baker]

 

[the_interloper]

You want to know how long computer devices have been capable of communicating through the internet? Forgive me for taking it as a rhetorical question.

My point is that the human instincts I was referring to are far more ingrained over mankind’s history than the relatively small time we’ve been using modern comms technology.

 

[Deliverance]

My point is that the human instincts I was referring to are far more ingrained over mankind’s history than the relatively small time we’ve been using modern comma technology.

This is true, but it's interesting to note that the evolution of the frontal lobe has been driven mostly by enlargement of the prefrontal cortex and not the premotor cortex. Indicating that we should be more capable of executive function and less susceptible to short-sighted, reflexive behaviours.

 

[the_interloper]

This is true, but it's interesting to note that the evolution of the frontal lobe has been driven mostly by enlargement of the prefrontal cortex and not the premotor cortex. Indicating that we should be more capable of executive function and less susceptible to short-sighted, reflexive behaviours.

I don't know anything about this area but how long would such an evolution take, i'm assuming it's over generations?