NationStates Jolt Archive

No, it's only a fallacy when you attack the person and claim that that invalidates their argument, not when you attack the argument and claim it makes them a bad person.
If that wasn't true, (pardon the godwin) we'd have no grounds for saying the Nazis were evil.


The fallacy comes from making a statement that the person must be a liar to have made the statement you are attacking. Thus suggesting that they don't believe what they said, in fact, they know it to not be true, thus, what they said is a lie, therefore, they are a liar. That is still a personal attack. The only way it can become a non-ad hominem attack is then prove that they did indeed know that what they were saying was wrong and they said it anyway to deceive. Then they are a liar and you are not simply calling them names. To say what someone says is a lie is to call the person that said it a liar, without being able to prove it, it is simply character assassination or an ad hominem attack.

EDIT:

Oh, thank you Muravyets, I'll borrow your post for an example here...

I suspect that what we are witnessing here is a person who just doesn't want to back down from a point, even though it is based on an obvious, and trivial, mistake, possibly because he just doesn't like the person who has been calling him on it.

See in the quote above, the statement that the mistake is trival and in her opinion obvious,and she does NOT call the statement she was attacking a LIE, because she does not know if the person did it knowing it to be an untruth. She assumes, since she can't prove otherwise, that the post she is attacking was said in good faith, regardless of how little respect she has for it. IF she, like Jocabia does, called it a Lie, then she would in fact be declaring a statement of intent by the poster of the post she is attacking, likely a statement she cannot prove against the author of the post she is addressing.

She would be calling him a liar, if she did, an ad hominem attack. She did NOT do an ad hominem attack here though, she choose to attack the words without implication against the person that made the quote. That is the difference.

As long as some men will use "bitch" to describe any woman who is strong and independent, then I will use "bitch" to describe myself, especially when talking to such men as those.
All I hear is "blah blah blah, I'm a dirty whore".


Just kidding, but in all seriousness, it is that kind of response which will make most guys simply roll their eyes. Honestly, WTF is "strong and independant" even supposed to mean? It's that kind of silly, generic, and ultimately vague description that makes men cringe. If you're strong and independant, what anyone says about you shouldn't matter worth a damn. I use bitch as a generic term just as I might use fuckers to a group of guys, doesn't carry any evil implication. The only real problem comes into play when people who aren't "strong and independant", but rather over-sensitive and (IMHO) whiny take issue with statements that only carry a negative connation if they decide to interpret it that way. If I think you're a real bitch, guess what, the human voice and body is more than capable of expressing that in a way far more powerful than a word. People who take issue with words as simple words are not strong and independant, they are oversensitive and incapable of differentiating tone, intent, and other obvious cues. Honestly, the sensitivity in America, and the world, is getting ridiculuous.

I think there are actual differences in the ways our brains work gender-wise.

I don't know how much of it is 'socialized' into people but it's def. there. (I was 'socialized' into some thought patterns that I am still trying to get rid of though)
Yes, but if there are gender differences in cognitive brain function, then even if a girl's role models are all men, she will still process their examples in a feminine, female-brain way. Likewise, if a boy's role models are all women, he will process their examples in a masculine, male-brain way.

As an example: I know many men who claim their mothers as primary role models for how to be a good person. I also know men who claim famous women as role models, such as Amelia Earhardt, Joan d'Arc, the Celtic Queen Boudicca, and the Egyptian female pharoah Hatchepsut. There was nothing particularly masculine about any of those women, but they achieved notable things in their lives and did so in dramatic, legendary fashion, which makes them just as inspiring to boys as they are to girls.

Why would I smack you? Yes, people behave in gendered ways. That's not anything shocking. I simply don't think we can tell which behaviors are "innate" and which are conditioned, since we have so much conditioning going on (even at levels we may not consciously notice). I'd be very curious to see what happens if we get rid of the conditioning and look at the actual innate differences.
One of the frustrating things about this "gender differences/gender roles" thing is that it IS strictly cultural, not "natural."

In ancient Mesoamerican cultures, new babies were welcomed into the world and culture by a ritual in which the baby was shown all the implements of all the jobs and social positions available in life. Both boys and girls got the same, complete catalogue of items -- everything from weapons to looms for weaving. And during this ritual, songs were sung encouraging the baby to choose the path that would be right for him or her.

Ancient Sarmation/Mongolian culture, meanwhile, was dominated by a female warrior social structure (believed to be the possible real-life origin of Herodotus's "amazons") in which women held social power, fought wars, and led religion and government, while men were relegated to the same domestic and childrearing tasks that our culture thinks are "natural" to women.

When are we going to learn to see past ourselves, to put ourselves into a true perspective, and make real judgments about how realistic our assumptions and expectations are? Until we do, I do not think our society will ever get past arguing about what is "natural" or "innate" in order to see that bigotry is not about the people who are the targets of the prejudice (of whatever kind). It is about social status and about power and about controlling who gets access to them. Sex, race, religion, eye-color, or left/right-handedness, all are just convenient tags for creating an "out" group, so the bigot can cement his position with the "in" group.

...
As an example: I know many men who claim their mothers as primary role models for how to be a good person. I also know men who claim famous women as role models, such as Amelia Earhardt, Joan d'Arc, the Celtic Queen Boudicca, and the Egyptian female pharoah Hatchepsut. There was nothing particularly masculine about any of those women, but they achieved notable things in their lives and did so in dramatic, legendary fashion, which makes them just as inspiring to boys as they are to girls.

*carefully treading on water here*

What do you mean there was nothing particularly masculine about any of those women? Amelia cut her hair short and dressed like a man, for all the world like a modern day woman might... Hatchepsut wore a fake beard for ceremonies, Joan (like Amelia) dressed like a man, cut her hair, and refused to act 'feminine' until she delivered France, and Boudicca I know less about, but I know she fought with melee weapons and rode in chariots and likly didn't bath much... (just kidding about the bathing thing, I have not idea ;) )

ON the other hand, I find all four women to be attractive and erotic examples of the female race, so I’m just saying is all… [/ends treading on water]

Oh, you know, men have to learn... ahem... well... you know... the male values that only men can teach because if they don't learn them they won't be 'real' men. These values are things men are born with, only men have to teach it to other men because they don't know they're born with them. Yes, I know that's illogical, but I'm trying to argue FOR sexism so what does logic have to do with anything?
Like how to write their name in the snow?

Like how to write their name in the snow?


Exactly. Women will never understand.

*carefully treading on water here*
Not carefully enough.

What do you mean there was nothing particularly masculine about any of those women? Amelia cut her hair short and dressed like a man, for all the world like a modern day woman might... Hatchepsut wore a fake beard for ceremonies, Joan (like Amelia) dressed like a man, cut her hair, and refused to act 'feminine' until she delivered France, and Boudicca I know less about, but I know she fought with melee weapons and rode in chariots and likly didn't bath much... (just kidding about the bathing thing, I have not idea ;) )
1) Amelia's haircut was a common female haircut of her time. Go google photos of women of the same period if you don't believe me. Short hair is not a symbol of maleness.

2) As for Amelia's clothes, (1) she wore the clothes that were appropriate for flying in planes of that era; (2) many women dressed casually in pants and button-down shirts in the 1920s-1930s -- also women's styles, not men's.

3) Just like Amelia, Hatchepsut wore the clothes that were required for her work. That fake beard? Guess what? The male pharoahs wore it, too. It was one of the symbolic props of the pharoah's costume. It was the beard of Osiris. You'll notice, if you bother to google Egyptian art, that the same male pharoahs are shown with that stylized beard when seated on their throne, but without it in more personal portraits. That's because they didn't really grow it, but all pharoahs had to wear it.

4) Joan d'Arc also dressed for work, which for her, meant warfare, and warfare meant hose, jerkins and armor, and short hair that would not get caught in the armor (fyi, it was with the advent of plate armor that men started cutting their hair, too). There is absolutely nothing in her story to suggest that she did not wear women's clothes before she had her vision to lead an army.

5) If you don't know anything about Boudicca, then you're not in much of a position to comment about her sexuality or her role in her society, are you? Fyi, Boudicca fit perfectly the mainstream gender roles for all Celtic women of her time, i.e. mother, wife, warrior and spokeswoman for the morals and identity of the society. She was also queen of the Iceni tribe of Britain, and led a popular revolt against the Romans, neither of which she would have done if she had not been seen to represent the heart of their culture. You can google her, too, if you're tired of having your ignorance thrown back at you.

So, to review, you have made assumptions about the sexuality of certain women and assumptions about gender roles in general based on two things you apparently know nothing about -- fashion and history. Good work.

ON the other hand, I find all four women to be attractive and erotic examples of the female race, so I’m just saying is all… [/ends treading on water]
too late -- SPLASH!

Oh, btw, the phrase you wanted was "treading on thin ice." "Treading on water" is what Jesus did.

I guess that's another thing you were ignorant about.

The fallacy comes from making a statement that the person must be a liar to have made the statement you are attacking. Thus suggesting that they don't believe what they said, in fact, they know it to not be true, thus, what they said is a lie, therefore, they are a liar. That is still a personal attack. The only way it can become a non-ad hominem attack is then prove that they did indeed know that what they were saying was wrong and they said it anyway to deceive. Then they are a liar and you are not simply calling them names. To say what someone says is a lie is to call the person that said it a liar, without being able to prove it, it is simply character assassination or an ad hominem attack.

EDIT:

Oh, thank you Muravyets, I'll borrow your post for an example here...



See in the quote above, the statement that the mistake is trival and in her opinion obvious,and she does NOT call the statement she was attacking a LIE, because she does not know if the person did it knowing it to be an untruth. She assumes, since she can't prove otherwise, that the post she is attacking was said in good faith, regardless of how little respect she has for it. IF she, like Jocabia does, called it a Lie, then she would in fact be declaring a statement of intent by the poster of the post she is attacking, likely a statement she cannot prove against the author of the post she is addressing.

She would be calling him a liar, if she did, an ad hominem attack. She did NOT do an ad hominem attack here though, she choose to attack the words without implication against the person that made the quote. That is the difference.
Mm-hm. Unfortunately, I do not think that my post is relevant to your argument over the nature of Jocabia's posts. In my post, I was commenting speculatively only on CanuckHeaven's possible motive for persuing this line of argument and for going way out on the limb of saying that sexism is not comparable to racism -- a remark which I think is rather out of character for him, and which I suppose he is driven to only out his refusal to back down to Jocabia. But I did not comment about CH's argument in and of itself.

Jocabia, on the other hand, is attacking CH's manner of presenting his argument, and to the extent that he has accused CH of lying, it is only insofar as he asserts that CH is putting words into Bottle's mouth AND only insofar as he feels he can show the difference between what Bottle said and what CH said she said. To call CH a "liar" is harsh, but Jocabia has a sometimes harsh style (it's one of the things I like about him), and the fact is that, if someone deliberately continues to repeat a statement even after the statement has been shown to be false, then what started as a mistake does become a lie. I personally don't think Jocabia is making any headway by beating CH over the head with it, but there it is.

Now, to be absolutely clear, if I were asked what I think about the fact that CanuckHeaven said that sexism cannot be compared to racism because it hasn't killed as many people, implying that sexism is not as serious or damaging as racism, I would have to mention that I think CH is lying when he says that because, based on other posts of his on other topics, I do not believe he really believes his own statement here. If I'm wrong about him, then I will amend that view, but based on what I know of him so far, I think he is knowingly promoting a view he does not hold.

Not carefully enough.

....

You are so funny, I tried Sooo hard to inform you it was tongue in cheek... but no.

That's sad. Are you like that in person too? someone makes a sarcastic joke and you jump down their throat?

too late -- SPLASH!

Oh, btw, the phrase you wanted was "treading on thin ice." "Treading on water" is what Jesus did.

I guess that's another thing you were ignorant about.

Treading on water was the implication I was going for... that or egg shells, but I decided on water specifically for the Jesus analogy...

Too bad you over read it. You know, in your anger and all.

...
I would have to mention that I think CH is lying when he says that because, based on other posts of his on other topics, I do not believe he really believes his own statement here. If I'm wrong about him, then I will amend that view, but based on what I know of him so far, I think he is knowingly promoting a view he does not hold.


See, that is NOT an ad hominem attack then because you DO think the person in question is telling an untruth knowingly, something they know themselves is wrong and they say it on purpose. IF you are correct, then they are a liar and if you are incorrect, then you are mistaken, but you are still honestly calling them a liar (even though you are wrong) because you believe it and you say it with purpose.

However, Jocabia’s situation here is different, Jocabia says, I am not saying anything about them at a person at all, I am not calling them a liar. But Jocabia is wrong, he does call their statement a lie, thus he must think they are a liar. IF he calls them a liar he must honestly believe it himself or else he is a liar for having called their post a lie in public, a deception he doesn’t believe.

A lie is not an honest mistake, a lie must be done on purpose with intent.

All I hear is "blah blah blah, I'm a dirty whore".
You misheard. The real message was "blah blah blah, go to hell."

Just kidding,
Oh, of course, we just kid...

but in all seriousness, it is that kind of response which will make most guys simply roll their eyes.
You and I move in very different social circles. Most of the men I know love that I relate to the word that way. It shows that (A) I can stand up for myself and not let others push me around or slap labels on me, and (B) I have a sense of humor about myself and am not all prissy and delicate about how people talk around me. Even the most staid, old-fashioned, elderly men I know, who would never let a word like "bitch" cross their lips in mixed company, find they can relax around me, without worrying that if their talk gets a little rough I'll think they're verbally attacking me.

Honestly, WTF is "strong and independant" even supposed to mean?
Sigh. Bookmark this. It's the website for the Meriam-Webster online dictionary:

http://www.m-w.com/

It's that kind of silly, generic, and ultimately vague description that makes men cringe. If you're strong and independant, what anyone says about you shouldn't matter worth a damn. I use bitch as a generic term just as I might use fuckers to a group of guys, doesn't carry any evil implication. The only real problem comes into play when people who aren't "strong and independant", but rather over-sensitive and (IMHO) whiny take issue with statements that only carry a negative connation if they decide to interpret it that way. If I think you're a real bitch, guess what, the human voice and body is more than capable of expressing that in a way far more powerful than a word. People who take issue with words as simple words are not strong and independant, they are oversensitive and incapable of differentiating tone, intent, and other obvious cues. Honestly, the sensitivity in America, and the world, is getting ridiculuous.
Well, I guess I must be a real bitch, because I am ready to just dismiss the whole of the above paragraph just because it is incoherent and self-contradictory.

The ad hominem attack example you forgot is the one you do. It is the one you use when you don't like someone's opinion.

Example: call someone’s opinion a lie. Translation, a lie is an intentional untruth, therefore, calling the statement a lie is to call the speaker a liar, a personal attack.

If you did not want the questioning of the opinion to be a personal attack, you would say something like, you are mistaken, that is erroneous, you are incorrect about that fact, etc., etc., etc. But YOU do NOT do that, you call it a LIE, accusing them of doing it on purpose to turn it into a persoanal attack against them as a person.
That and continually telling a person that they are "dishonest".

But, yes you are correct.

You are so funny, I tried Sooo hard to inform you it was tongue in cheek... but no.

That's sad. Are you like that in person too? someone makes a sarcastic joke and you jump down their throat?



Treading on water was the implication I was going for... that or egg shells, but I decided on water specifically for the Jesus analogy...

Too bad you over read it. You know, in your anger and all.
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you liked to be spanked and yelled at and made fun of. You set yourself up for it so often, it seems churlish not to play along at least some of the time.

Yes, dear, I knew you were trying to be amusing. You were still completely wrong, though, of course, and you were wrong in a way that proved illustrative to the question of gender roles and assumptions about the same, so I took the opportunity the whack the pinata you hung out there.

Consider yourself as the straight man in a two-person cross-talk vaudeville act (more things for you to google), and just take the slaps for the amusement of the audience.

See, that is NOT an ad hominem attack then because you DO think the person in question is telling an untruth knowingly, something they know themselves is wrong and they say it on purpose. IF you are correct, then they are a liar and if you are incorrect, then you are mistaken, but you are still honestly calling them a liar (even though you are wrong) because you believe it and you say it with purpose.

However, Jocabia’s situation here is different, Jocabia says, I am not saying anything about them at a person at all, I am not calling them a liar. But Jocabia is wrong, he does call their statement a lie, thus he must think they are a liar. IF he calls them a liar he must honestly believe it himself or else he is a liar for having called their post a lie in public, a deception he doesn’t believe.
I disagree. A liar is typically understood as one who lies habitually. A person may tell only one lie in their entire life. That statement will still be a lie, but the person will not be a liar. Therefore, to say that a given statement is a lie does not automatically say anything about the character of the person who said it.

A lie is not an honest mistake, a lie must be done on purpose with intent.
I have already pointed out to you that intent has been alleged. Jocabia did not start calling CH's statements lies until AFTER he showed CH that what he claimed Bottle said was not what she actually said and CH nevertheless continued to make those same claims. At that point, because the untruth had already been shown, CH's claims became lies because he is clearly deliberately repeating something he knows to be untrue.

Now, of course, CH's defense is that he does not think his statements are untrue, but rather, that they are an accurate interpretation of Bottle's remarks. However, Bottle herself has corrected him and clarified her statements several times over, yet he ignores this and continues to press his now-discredited arguments.

I also allege intent when I say that CH is deliberately promoting a view that he does not hold, which is another form of lie. I believe he is doing this solely because he does not want to back down before these particular people he is arguing against, but I wish he would realize the negative image of himself he is creating.

...
Yes, dear, I knew you were trying to be amusing. You were still completely wrong, though, of course, and you were wrong in a way that proved illustrative to the question of gender roles and assumptions about the same, so I took the opportunity the whack the pinata you hung out there.
....

Actually, you took the opportunity to reinforce the stereotypical irrationally angry female. As in, there is no surviving an off-color joke made while she has the rolling pin in hand...

Actually, you took the opportunity to reinforce the stereotypical irrationally angry female. As in, there is no surviving an off-color joke made while she has the rolling pin in hand...
And you just took the opportunity to reinforce the stereotypical Male Chauvinist Pig(tm).

Adorable example though. Reminds me of the ex-boyfriend who tried to pick a fight with me about politics while I was cooking him dinner and while I was holding a large kitchen knife.

I disagree. A liar is typically understood as one who lies habitually. A person may tell only one lie in their entire life. That statement will still be a lie, but the person will not be a liar. Therefore, to say that a given statement is a lie does not automatically say anything about the character of the person who said it.

Yes AND no. A liar is a person who lies habitually. However, it is also a guilty person that denies guilt. Thus, in Jocabia's version the person who made the lie statement is guilty of lying.

I have already pointed out to you that intent has been alleged. Jocabia did not start calling CH's statements lies until AFTER he showed CH that what he claimed Bottle said was not what she actually said and CH nevertheless continued to make those same claims. At that point, because the untruth had already been shown, CH's claims became lies because he is clearly deliberately repeating something he knows to be untrue.

Now, of course, CH's defense is that he does not think his statements are untrue, but rather, that they are an accurate interpretation of Bottle's remarks. However, Bottle herself has corrected him and clarified her statements several times over, yet he ignores this and continues to press his now-discredited arguments.

That bolding shows where the post can be a mistake, an error, or simply wrong and incorrect. But IF the statement is made in good faith, it cannot be a lie. Jocabia does not bother to try and prove lie, in fact, he errors in method by claiming that the Lie label does not affect the posters person, when in fact, it does.

I also allege intent when I say that CH is deliberately promoting a view that he does not hold, which is another form of lie. I believe he is doing this solely because he does not want to back down before these particular people he is arguing against, but I wish he would realize the negative image of himself he is creating.


The reason for a lie is irrelevant. A lie is a lie and it is an accusation against the person that made the statement to call the statement a lie.

And you just took the opportunity to reinforce the stereotypical Male Chauvinist Pig(tm).

Adorable example though. Reminds me of the ex-boyfriend who tried to pick a fight with me about politics while I was cooking him dinner and while I was holding a large kitchen knife.

Yes I did, and yes you did, and yes he made a mistake too I'm sure :p

Yes I did, and yes you did, and yes he made a mistake too I'm sure :p
No, I didn't. There was nothing either "irrational" or "angry" in my post. It was a deliberately plonking exercise in showing you up to be wrong. I do that sort of thing for a laugh, because it's fun (for me) to point out absolutely every single error my opponent makes, especially when all his points are errors. Hehehe.

Anyway, if you had actually made a valid point, then you could criticize my post as being "irrational" and "angry," but since you really were as wrong as you really were, then your criticism of me isn't valid, either.

Oh, by the way, making fun of my post as the "irrational" product of an "angry" woman is a lot closer to an ad hominem attack than anything Jocabia has done to CanuckHeaven so far. (Or it would be if you were serious.)

Oh, and you're wrong about the lie thing, too, but it's 1:30 am and I'm going to go to bed now, so you'll have to wait until morning for an explanation -- if either of us is still interested by then.*



*That's a hint that I would prefer you to get disinterested in it; it's off topic.

Yes I did, and yes you did, and yes he made a mistake too I'm sure :p
He didn't make it again, though. 'Night.

Now, to be absolutely clear, if I were asked what I think about the fact that CanuckHeaven said that sexism cannot be compared to racism because it hasn't killed as many people, implying that sexism is not as serious or damaging as racism, I would have to mention that I think CH is lying when he says that because, based on other posts of his on other topics, I do not believe he really believes his own statement here. If I'm wrong about him, then I will amend that view, but based on what I know of him so far, I think he is knowingly promoting a view he does not hold.
First off, let me tell you flat out, that I think that sexism, racism, and anti-semitism are all bad, and each have their own characteristics and problems.

I really didn't want to get sidetracked into any comparisons of those topics as they are unrelated to the topic "modern day feminism". Although sexism is a serious issue, I truly believe that racism is far more prevalent and harmful to our societies. When you toss religion and politics into the racial equations one can easily see what are the greatest problems facing the people of earth today. This might give you an example of what I am referring to:

List of ethnic slurs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs)

At any rate, that is my take on the situation and if you have any numbers or stats that suggest otherwise, I would be willing to look at them.

I have already pointed out to you that intent has been alleged. Jocabia did not start calling CH's statements lies until AFTER he showed CH that what he claimed Bottle said was not what she actually said and CH nevertheless continued to make those same claims. At that point, because the untruth had already been shown, CH's claims became lies because he is clearly deliberately repeating something he knows to be untrue.

Now, of course, CH's defense is that he does not think his statements are untrue, but rather, that they are an accurate interpretation of Bottle's remarks. However, Bottle herself has corrected him and clarified her statements several times over, yet he ignores this and continues to press his now-discredited arguments.

I also allege intent when I say that CH is deliberately promoting a view that he does not hold, which is another form of lie. I believe he is doing this solely because he does not want to back down before these particular people he is arguing against, but I wish he would realize the negative image of himself he is creating.
Well, I am truly sorry that you see it that way, but it is my contention that Bottle deliberately set out to bash the OP in the most demeaning manner. Despite what Bottle may claim to the contrary, here is one example where she contradicts herself:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859244&postcount=18

anti-feminists are fun to bait when you want entertainment, but they're usually dull after a while and are almost always lousy in bed.

I've had other lovers in the past, both male and female, and not a single one has ever been an anti-feminist

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859366&postcount=58

Not all bad lovers are anti-feminist, but I have never encountered an anti-feminist who wasn't also bad lover. I'm not saying it's impossible for there to be an anti-feminist who's good in the sack, I'm just saying it's a general trend.
How would Bottle know this, if she has NEVER been to bed with an anti-feminist?

Why would she makes such generalized statements?

Another contradiction:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11864581&postcount=511

I don't believe I said they were inferior to me. I said they make inferior mates.
That in itself is a contradiction, and a generalization, but it gets worse:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859244&postcount=18

In my opinion, non-feminists are inherently sub-par individuals

Just like racists, anti-Semites, and other lowlifes

most non-idiots are feminists
So Bottle doesn't think that non-feminists are inferior to her? I think her words pretty much states that?

And yet, another contradiction:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859366&postcount=58

Again, I never said all stupid people were anti-feminist, just that all anti-feminist people are sub-par prospects for relationships.
No, she didn't say all, but most:

most non-idiots are feminists these days
So Mura, if ya want to think that Bottle is a straight shooter on this topic, be my guest, but I think that she has clearly confirmed most of what I was contending.

Anyways, that is my story and I am sticking to it, despite any brow beatings I might incur.

Good stuff. Since you're not aware. He was caught dishonestly presenting Bottle's post. To call him on it is not an attack on him, it's an attack on his argument. Ad hominem means "to the man" in Latin. I called his ARGUMENT a lie. It has nothing to do with him and everything to do with his argument. If you're unaware of the meaning of a word, please don't use it. You're already losing this argument.
What you removed was the FACT that his claims were dishonest. He admits that she meant things the way I phrased him after arguing for 60 pages that she said something completely different.

What the hell are you on about? Seeing as you have snipped all the post I have no idea what post you are refering to. Is this about the animal testing suggestion? Who is 'He'? Is it you refering to me in the third person? Where did ad-hom come from? I'm yet to bring it up. When did I dishonestly represent Bottles post?

Seeing as you're talking about me and Bottle discussing something, and that the only two posts I made to you since your last reply were about the animal tests and some reasonable questions about your demonstration that males and females benefit equally from, and respond in the same way to, a role model of either gender - which had nothign to do with Bottle, I think you are talking about the animal testing...

Lets recap:

Bottle Said:
I think none of us can possibly guess at what ACTUAL gender differences may exist, since we have so many layers of gendering going on that it's impossible for us to tell. If you really want to find out about that sort of thing, then you've got to strip away all the artificial boys-versus-girls crap first. So we've all got common cause!
Then I said:
As a start that would get less complaints than using a few thousand african orphans in a giant social experiment you could try with chimps.

Take a couple hundred male and female baby chimps, isolate them completely from any adult chimps from 1week old or so and let them grow developing their behavior patterns based only on what they see each other doing. You'd get a chimps 'innate' behavior which you could compare to their earned behavior.

Repeat with only female adults and only male adults.

Any conclusions or any predictions? I just suggested trying it to see...

Then bottle said:
Doesn't work. As you said, kids need role models. And not just for gendering. They don't need men to show them how to be men and women to show them how to be women, they need adults to show them how to be adults.

If you take youngsters away from all adults at that young age, they become deeply fucked up. (Don't get scared off by my technical terminology, now! )) This has been shown with chimp young many times. It's not the lack of gendering that's the problem, it's that apes (including humans) are social creatures and require social context to thrive.

Then I said:
Doesn't that mean the inate state of mind is something approaching savagery?

That 'what boys are like' and 'what girls are like' are really what we would consider to be seriously fucked up individuals?

Then Bottle said:
In a sense, yes. "Savage" is a word with some really harsh connotations, so it might not be the one I would choose, but it's true that humans aren't born with an innate social conscience that will necessarily rule their other drives.

We have innate drives to be kind, to be generous, to be loving, and to be a part of a caring social structure. However, we also have drives to be aggressive, selfish, unkind, and individually-focused.

It takes most of us a lifetime to figure out how to integrate our various motivations and wishes, if we ever really manage to do so. Children tend to be better off if they have some adult guidance and support to help them with at least the simplest levels of this integration process.
(Note her agreement, with an exception of using her not feeling totally comfortable using the word 'Savage' , but a general agreement with my statement.

Then you wade in with:
No. It wouldn't. For animals, it would mean that interaction with adults is necessary. However, there has never been shown to be a significant difference in animals raised by solely one sex of parents.

Which I reasonably asked how many studies have been done on this to which you replied:


What am I? Kreskin. I only know what I've seen.

The burden of proof is on you to show that there is a difference. You're making a positive assertion that would only be supported if such a difference occurred.

1. I did not say there was a difference in animals - I suggested looking to see if there was a difference - as a start to seeing if there might be a difference in humans, what is unreasonable about that? What is innately wrong with saying "Hey - lets try this and find out rather than speculate". I speculated on doing an experiment, not what the results would be. I made NO assertation of the results whatsoever and you then made an assertation that no link has been found. Bottle said we do not know what people are really like, what boys are really like and what girls are really like. I suggested that as human experimenst would not be allowed that we could try on animals - and made NO claim about what the results of such experimenst would be.

All I want to know is: Have there been studies that found no link or has no link been found because there have not been any studies on that. If studies have found no link then it is reasonable to ask you to provide a link so I can have a look. If there have been no studies then it is a bit harsh of you to point to a lack of a link due to lack of studies and showing there is not a link.





Now - In regards to your assertation that males and females benefit equally and respond equally to role models of either gender (which is a positive assertation even though you try to word it as a negative one) can you please answer the questions I asked (I thought they were civil and reasonable - particulary the clarification ones) as at the moment your demonstration that males and females respond equally to role models of both genders seems a bit fuzzy with a very vague cause of 'feminism' (whatever you mean by that) with no proposed mechinism for the cause of the difference in classrom performance of males and females. It still looks like you are still well into porates/global warming with it, except you ahve not even defined 'pirates'.

It confused me how she said that anti-feminists were bad in bed but then says everyone she's slept with was a feminist. Maybe I missed something.
Yeah, quite a few other people missed it too and yet have been calling me dishonest. :(

Ok I am not a troll I am also not a feminist. I think that society works best when there is order. I guess I am kind of Confucian. I think that a good Constitution keeps a government orderly and a traditional family model keeps the family orderly.

I run my home. I am a man. I think that is the traditional and therefore natural way of living. I would never even think about hitting my wife. I would never think about limiting her communication with others (although she does talk to her mom way too much and it does get a little annoying. I am quite a benevolent dictator but I am still the man in charge.

That may seem strange to a feminist but I think she and I are quite happy. I think we are happy because we are living life the way a man and a woman are meant to live.

I think feminism is dangerous because it disrupts that order and the tranquility and peace that are order's fruit. Our grandparents lived as I do and they won World War II and although born during the Depression and poverty accumulated more wealth than any other generation.

I do not think that those that live as I do are morons. I think that modern feminism is a child of the 60s and all the irresponsibility and self-centered "self empowerment" bolognia that was part of that group of young fools.

I blame the breakdown of the family on feminism because the selfish part of it says that if you are unhappy it is ok to leave the marriage even if your unhappiness was reasonably foreseeable when you got married or if you have children and there is no abuse.

I blame feminism for single mothers and the upsurge in crime that goes with young kids without a good male role model in poverty. Feminism teaches women that being a single mom is ok and I disagree.

Feminism disrupts order and leads to chaos. It is a short sighted search for happiness that erodes the familial order that is the wellspring of happiness.

You may disagree with me but I agree with myself. I am not a troll.

J00r my hero!

Rather than changing the meaning of the words, he just removed the words that might cause someone to actually think that you just might be one of those "feminazis" that both you and your pal Joc have referred to?

However, it is nice to see that both you and Jocabia agree that a toned down version of your original post is more appropriate.
You are, once again, willfully misinterpretting what I am saying.

I am not remotely sorry for using harsh words to refer to anti-feminists and non-feminists, any more than I am sorry for using harsh words to refer to racists. If I say, "Anti-feminists hold bigotted views which I happen to find objectionable enough that I would never consider dating them," is that really different than saying, "Anti-feminists are sub-par dating material and are not worth my time"? I don't think so. If you'd prefer I use more flowery expressions of disapproval...too bad.

What I object to is when people like you choose to assume that all men are non-feminists or anti-feminists (which would, therefore, make my words "man-hating"). I object to that because I believe it is a serious insult to men, and I happen to find that both sexist and rude. You choose to slander an entire gender by insisting that they are all idiots and bigots, and I think that's pretty pathetic.

Look, I understand how embarassing it is to be conspicuously wrong. But you could have just admitted your mistake many pages ago, and this whole thing would have blown over. Now you've dug yourself into a really big hole by refusing to just accept that you made a small error in the beginning.

I'm willing to just let it go, so that everybody can get on with their lives. I'm sure you won't make the same mistake in the future, and I think your error has been amply clarified here (such that I don't have to worry that other people would be misled by what you claim about me), so the matter can be closed as far as I am concerned.

On the other hand, if you'd like to spend another 50 pages telling me what I think, I'm more than willing to watch Joc continue to hand you your arse. Either way is good for me.

In answer to that, umm are you proposing?

Heh I married a realy strong willed woman, who definatly gets what she wants. lucky for me whats she wants is to stay at home with the kids, keep a tidy house and have dinner waiting for me when I get home from work!:)

Happy hell yes!

All I hear is "blah blah blah, I'm a dirty whore".

Just kidding, but in all seriousness, it is that kind of response which will make most guys simply roll their eyes.

Which is helpful, because then a girl knows which guys aren't worth bothering with.


Honestly, WTF is "strong and independant" even supposed to mean? It's that kind of silly, generic, and ultimately vague description that makes men cringe.

Again with the man-hating.

Men, as a rule, don't have a problem with strength or independence. A loud minority of very insecure males happen to cringe when confronted with others who display these qualities, sure, but who cares about them? Would you want to date them? Then why assume women would?


If you're strong and independant, what anyone says about you shouldn't matter worth a damn.

Doesn't matter how strong or independent you are, chief, what people say about you will still matter. Strong, independent people still have feelings. Strong, independent people still don't like being insulted, harassed, abused, or treated like crap. Doesn't make you weak or dependent to dislike shoddy treatment. Doesn't make you weak or dependent to stand up for yourself when people mistreat you.


I use bitch as a generic term just as I might use fuckers to a group of guys, doesn't carry any evil implication. The only real problem comes into play when people who aren't "strong and independant", but rather over-sensitive and (IMHO) whiny take issue with statements that only carry a negative connation if they decide to interpret it that way.

That's your personal preference for using the term. Fine.


If I think you're a real bitch, guess what, the human voice and body is more than capable of expressing that in a way far more powerful than a word.

I'm not quite sure what this is supposed to mean, but ok.


People who take issue with words as simple words are not strong and independant, they are oversensitive and incapable of differentiating tone, intent, and other obvious cues. Honestly, the sensitivity in America, and the world, is getting ridiculuous.The "sticks and stones" argument didn't work on the playground, and it doesn't work here. Words can do a lot of damage. Words matter to people. Whether or not you LIKE that fact is beside the point.

There is a balance to be found. Everybody needs to realize that there are assholes who will say assholish things, and that crying isn't going to make the assholes go away. There is no right to not be offended.

At the same time, don't pretend like you don't know what you're doing. I know that I say things that hurt people, and I own up to it when I do it (I've done so on this thread). Don't blame the victims for responding exactly the way you knew they would. You knew they wouldn't like the word you used, you knew they would get pissed or hurt, and you did it because that was the response you were looking for. So don't play coy games about how they're just too sensitive and blah blah blah.

I would very much like to date a panzer feminist (assuming she is heterosexual or bi or whatever ie into guys) who wouldn't want a girlfriend who's intimidating, mohawk-wearing,harley-riding, and kicks alot of ass? I sure would :D

Can you support this claim, specifically? My experience has been that feminists are dedicated to both pursuits. Indeed, feminists are among the few who realize that these two issues are actually one and the same; making sure that women have better jobs and working conditions will make them more able to support and care for their children.

Better jobs mean safer lives and more time to spend with their kids. Better jobs mean better health care, better neighborhoods, better schools, and better conditions for their kids. Better career options will also make it possible for women to take time off to spend with their children, without having to sacrifice their own careers or future earning potential. This means that women won't have to choose between supporting their family and spending time with their family.
Can you support this claim, specifically? Most top end jobs require a high degree of sacrifice of ones personal life for professional success. If you're getting paid $200 000 a year, and the project has to be finished tomorrow, you don't say I need to go home to my children.

Feminist have also been the ones pushing to have domestic work respected more, instead of having it diminished as "women's work." This includes child care, as well as caring for the elderly and for relatives, maintaining a household, and all the other thankless (and frequently unpaid) work that has been traditionally assigned to women.

But this push has been a long way behind the push for flash, well paid jobs.

Well, sure. Just like lots of men want all the benefits feminism has brought us, but also want to have a submissive sextoy/housebot for a girlfriend/wife.
So finally one of the "tag team, post 50 times a day, do you guys live on the net or have a real life?" accepted that it's hypocritical. I never denied that a man wanting the women to bring home a wage and look after the kids was hypocritical. I even stated it was wrong, more than once. The hypocrisy of women wanting the good parts of feminism, but keeping the protector and men still wanting a sextoy/housebot are 2 sides of the same coin. Feminism (and the rest of society) needs to focus more on society and the poor rather than who's the next supreme court judge, or Hillary for 2008. But the "team" can't acknowledge, that maybe, just maybe, feminism has actually made some womens lives harder. That happens with societal change.

It confused me how she said that anti-feminists were bad in bed but then says everyone she's slept with was a feminist. Maybe I missed something.
Yeah, quite a few other people missed it too and yet have been calling me dishonest. :(
I said my lovers have been feminists, and that I don't date non-feminists. I'm sure both of you are aware that it is possible to engage in sexplay with a person you are not dating, right?

And also that it is possible to engage in some form of sexplay, but then realize that you want to stop (for whatever reason)?

And also that it is possible to go to bed with a person, find out they're not somebody you want to be with--sexually or otherwise--and thus decide not to be with them in the future?

Really, it's a sad state of affairs when such things need to be explained. I'm inclined to believe that there are several people playing dumb just to be obnoxious in this thread.

Oh, so you were bashing feminism because some people who are not feminists are hypocrites for, you know, not believing in equality (something inherent in not being a feminist, a person who believes in equality). Amusing.
I did? Where is the quote that says that?
Can you explain to me what is hypocritical about a person who doesn't believe in equality and want a big male protector? Do you not know what hypocritical means or do you not intend to use that word?
There is nothing hypocritical in that. But that's not what I said. I wonder if the thread will get to 2000 posts before you actually answer my question. Someone wanting a big strong male protector who always fixes the car, mows the lawn, take out the trash when she is physicaly capable of doing so, while expecting him to do half the cooking, cleaning, washing is hypocritical. On top of that wanting a flash job, when she wants a male protector is also hypocritical. You can't throw off part of the old gender roles. It's all or nothing or it's hypocrisy.
As you can see, I obviously know what hypocrisy means. I was inclined to use irony, but as you can't understand what I say, when I'm being completely to the point, I fear that you wouldn't understand irony. Maybe you pick up sarcasm. Here's hoping. Damn, by saying maybe you pick up sarcasm, that is slightly ironic, or is it. Did you get it?

I don't have to. I've demonstrated that feminism is fighting to change that problem. You suggested that feminism was only fighting for the 'good stuff'. I proved you wrong.
How? You just stated that. No proof. We've gone over this ground before. You can't claim what I say is crap without proof, unless you accept your statements are crap without proof.


I recognize that. What you're doing is saying that feminists are responsible for the actions of non-feminists in your posts. What you're doing is changing your claims because your initial claims got debunked.
No. You can not accept that feminism is anything but your perfect view of it. I couldn't get you to accept that there are many women who would call themselves feminists while still wanting men to protect them. You basically kept saying "That's not feminism". English is a living language, and it's all about common usage, not just the way your friends think about it.
What you're doing is embarrassing yourself.
What you are doing is using dirty tricks to shore up your weak argument. "Your post is so bad you're embarassing yourself". By resorting to such actions, you are showing the inherent weakness of your position and inabilty to rebut what I have said.

Can you support this claim, specifically?

Um, yes, consult any of the leading feminist organizations. NOW would be a start.


Most top end jobs require a high degree of sacrifice of ones personal life for professional success. If you're getting paid $200 000 a year, and the project has to be finished tomorrow, you don't say I need to go home to my children.

(I'm setting aside, for the sake of staying on point, the fact that a lot of top-end jobs don't require that kind of sacrifice, they just require nepotism or other forms of favoritism. I'm also setting aside the fact that there are plenty of people who make tons of money each year off of PAST sacrifices that they made, while not having to make those sacrifices in their current lifestyle.)

The idea of having to sacrifice personal life for a decent wage is, in itself, something a lot of people would like to change. Feminists are allied with a lot of other progressive groups that would like it to be possible for people to make a comfortable living without having to give up their free time, their families, or their leisure.

Furthermore, what you're talking about is pretty well beside the point. No matter what your job, there will probably be times when your career has to take priority. Just like there are times when taking out the trash takes priority over watching TV. So?

My point was that if you've got a better paying job with better benefits and better working conditions, you and your family are probably better off than if you had a shitty job with shitty benefits and shitty conditions.

If you make enough money to support your family working 40 hours a week, you probably get to see your kids more often than if you need to work 80 hours a week just to make ends meet.

If you have no health coverage at all, you will have to come up with ways to pay for medical care. If you are already struggling financially, this will probably mean even more time away from your family, since you've got to bring in yet more money.

And so on. Honestly, this stuff is all so self-evident to me that I'm not sure how to break it down further. Maybe it's because I've actually lived in the poor parts of town? I dunno. If somebody else can think of a clearer way to explain this, feel free to take a shot at it.


But this push has been a long way behind the push for flash, well paid jobs.

Again, I'd like to see what your sources are on this. It's possible you're right, I just don't know that I've seen evidence of that.

If it's true, then I could hazard some guesses at why. In my society (America) money is a source of a lot of power. Providing women with economic equality does more than just help them support themselves (though it certainly does that!). It also gives them power. It gives them a better bargaining position.

If women are working for half as much as men, then they're going to have a much harder time finding the time, energy, and resources to fight for things like improved status for domestic labor. Giving women an economic foot to stand on will help them be better able to push for all the other things they need. And I say "women" here, but really it applies to anybody.

Again, this seems self-evident to me; people who have to work 80 hours a week to feed their families seldom have much free time to be activists (although a few really amazing people do this), and they usually don't have any money to spare funding important causes.

Don't confine yourself to thinking about the tiny percentage of people who happen to make six-figure salaries. The overwhelming majority of women (and men!) do not fit that bracket. Focusing on only upper class women is going to give you extremely misleading impressions of feminism, since you're selectively ignoring the majority of the population.


So finally one of the "tag team, post 50 times a day, do you guys live on the net or have a real life?" accepted that it's hypocritical.

Nobody has denied that hypocrites exist, and that some of them happen to be female.

Oh, and just a suggestion: if you're posting on an internet forum, best not to waste your time trying to insult people for posting on an internet forum. ;)


I never denied that a man wanting the women to bring home a wage and look after the kids was hypocritical. I even stated it was wrong, more than once. The hypocrisy of women wanting the good parts of feminism, but keeping the protector and men still wanting a sextoy/housebot are 2 sides of the same coin.

Sure. And have nothing to do with feminism itself. That's just about individual people being hypocrites, as people sometimes are. Feminism doesn't cause that, and won't cure it, and shouldn't bother trying.


Feminism (and the rest of society) needs to focus more on society and the poor rather than who's the next supreme court judge, or Hillary for 2008.

Sorry, but I can't agree with you there. I don't like Hillary at all, but I think it's moronic to suggest that feminism isn't focusing on society and the poor when they focus on who is making our laws and enforcing them. That's just plain ignorant.

If you think that having the current administration in power hasn't impacted society or the poor, you're dreaming. If you think that the Court overturning Roe v Wade isn't a societal issue that will disproportionately impact the poor, then you need to crack a history book or two.


But the "team" can't acknowledge, that maybe, just maybe, feminism has actually made some womens lives harder. That happens with societal change.
Feminism freely acknowledges that it makes some women's lives harder. Women are expected to do more than just make babies and bake, nowadays. Higher expectations can make life much harder.

Feminism also ruins the marriage racket for a lot of women, because feminists point out that women actually like sex sometimes. If feminist bitches are willing to have sex without making a man pay for it with a ring, then that drags down the market price for pussy!

Feminism also has uprooted or strongly questioned a lot of traditions, which many people don't like because it makes the world more complicated. The Rules aren't as clear any more. Life is not black and white, but shades of gray. That's harder (though I happen to believe it's more rewarding, too), and many people don't like it.

Again, I'm really surprised that this lesson needs to be taught here, but sometimes "harder" doesn't mean "worse." Sometimes great things are difficult. Sometimes you have to work hard to get something of great value. Sometimes hard work is, you know, worth it.

Can you support this claim, specifically? Most top end jobs require a high degree of sacrifice of ones personal life for professional success. If you're getting paid $200 000 a year, and the project has to be finished tomorrow, you don't say I need to go home to my children.

False. I know lots of jobs that are exactly like that. Good project managers create redundancies in resources. And, trust me, when I'm working with $200,000 a year employees, they've got a good project manager.

Meanwhile, now feminism's attempt to make this stuff available to women wasn't doing so for the highly-paid women? You can't keep your story straight.

But this push has been a long way behind the push for flash, well paid jobs.

Another assertion, you've never supported. In fact, it's like everything you've ever said.

So finally one of the "tag team, post 50 times a day, do you guys live on the net or have a real life?" accepted that it's hypocritical. I never denied that a man wanting the women to bring home a wage and look after the kids was hypocritical. I even stated it was wrong, more than once. The hypocrisy of women wanting the good parts of feminism, but keeping the protector and men still wanting a sextoy/housebot are 2 sides of the same coin. Feminism (and the rest of society) needs to focus more on society and the poor rather than who's the next supreme court judge, or Hillary for 2008. But the "team" can't acknowledge, that maybe, just maybe, feminism has actually made some womens lives harder. That happens with societal change.

Now, you're just being dishonest. We've said several times that it's hypocritical. But, hey, what do you want from a guy that finds it necessary to insult people for doing EXACTLY the same thing he's doing. I'm glad you've stated that you're wrong. You are. You've got no evidence that any of your assertions are true.

Feminism is focused on all women. All of them. Meanwhile, you've claimed that feminism in their push to allow women to have jobs AND raise families didn't do enough for the women who make $200,000 a year. Which is it? You can't even keep this lame ass argument straight.

Are you really this bad at debate or are you pretending to hold these views to make that side look bad? This really is so bad as to seem intentional.

See, that is NOT an ad hominem attack then because you DO think the person in question is telling an untruth knowingly, something they know themselves is wrong and they say it on purpose. IF you are correct, then they are a liar and if you are incorrect, then you are mistaken, but you are still honestly calling them a liar (even though you are wrong) because you believe it and you say it with purpose.

However, Jocabia’s situation here is different, Jocabia says, I am not saying anything about them at a person at all, I am not calling them a liar. But Jocabia is wrong, he does call their statement a lie, thus he must think they are a liar. IF he calls them a liar he must honestly believe it himself or else he is a liar for having called their post a lie in public, a deception he doesn’t believe.

A lie is not an honest mistake, a lie must be done on purpose with intent.

Certainly a lie has intent. However, first an ad hominem is a statement that is NOT about the argument. So you should really learn that before speaking aobut it.

Second, I'm not calling him a liar. Everyone lies. Many people do it on this forum. You lie. I lie. Everyone lies. I don't do it here, but trust me, if my mother asks me what I think about her job raising me, I lie. Does that make a liar? Well, technically, but the connotation of the term suggests that it's more than a person who is known to occasionally lie. Otherwise, the term would have no meaning.

Now you may deduce that CanuckHeaven is a liar because he lied, but it is not one of my assumptions and it's not my argument. My argument is that he continually stated things he knew was false. That they were false is the point. I showed they were false. He admitted they were false, yet he continually stated the opposite and when caught rather than admitted he was wrong pretended like he said something else only to get caught again. He got caught. That doesn't say ANYTHING about him as a person as far as I'm concerned other than he did a very poor job in this particular debate.

The ability to extrapolate from my statements about his debate doesn't make it an attack on him. I was focused on the statements he made. If you don't like that then you don't like debate. Now, please open a dictionary and use words properly in the future. Thank you.

Yes AND no. A liar is a person who lies habitually. However, it is also a guilty person that denies guilt. Thus, in Jocabia's version the person who made the lie statement is guilty of lying.

That's a deduction from my statement. An extrapolation. Much like one could extrapolate from a post exposing that a person's arguments are based on a complete lack of information that the person who made that argument is ignorant, however, that doesn't change that the post is focused on the argument. Nothing you extrapolate from my statements to be about CanuckHeaven will change the fact that I pointed at the posts, not the man.

Do you even recall the topic I responded to? Dem said that a fatherless boy might grow up to become a stay with his family man simply because he was fatherless.

THAT was the topic. THAT was the only claim I disputed. I made no judgment or analyses of the data, I made no moral declarations about what it meant, nothing outside of the FACT that suggest otherwise, that fatherless families do not suddenly produce, in the next generation as one the suggestion, a group of stay with the families Dads.

Did YOU produce any data to dispute that claim? Did YOU produce any example to dispute the claim? Or did YOU question the assertion Dem made? Did you question the causative facts or data or merit of her assumption/proposal? Did you produce anything about BIRTH statistics to dispute mine at all?

Why no, no you did not do anything of those things. YOU did nothing but attack blindly, as is customary for you it seems.


Attack blindly, huh? Hmmm... except my blind 'attacks' (which of course were actually from an edit to point out your analysis of the data was wrong) were dead on. So dead on that you had to change your claim to be about unmarried women rather than single parent families and you had to change your claim to be about metropolitan areas rather than all Black people in the US.

I did? Where is the quote that says that?

You said you were talking about women but not feminists. And you've just admitted that you're calling them hypocrites. Goldfishing is just sad.

There is nothing hypocritical in that. But that's not what I said. I wonder if the thread will get to 2000 posts before you actually answer my question. Someone wanting a big strong male protector who always fixes the car, mows the lawn, take out the trash when she is physicaly capable of doing so, while expecting him to do half the cooking, cleaning, washing is hypocritical. On top of that wanting a flash job, when she wants a male protector is also hypocritical. You can't throw off part of the old gender roles. It's all or nothing or it's hypocrisy.

No, it isn't. You've got a problem with English. You've admitted that these women don't believe in equality. They aren't feminists. It's not hypocritical to take advantage of things that are good for you. At all. They don't believe in equality. So they let men do what they THINK men are good for and then take advantage of every good thing available to them elsewhere. That's selfish, but it's not hypcritical.

It would hypocritical if they believed in equality but still wanted the protector, but you've already admitted that they don't believe in equality. There is nothing surprising or hypocritical about taking a good job when it avails itself and allowing a guy to buy all of your drinks.

As you can see, I obviously know what hypocrisy means. I was inclined to use irony, but as you can't understand what I say, when I'm being completely to the point, I fear that you wouldn't understand irony. Maybe you pick up sarcasm. Here's hoping. Damn, by saying maybe you pick up sarcasm, that is slightly ironic, or is it. Did you get it?

You don't know what hypocrisy means. That's clear. You keep saying it's hypocritical for non-feminists to take the good jobs but still want a protector. You are talking about people who don't believe in equality. They are doing things consistent with not believing in equality. There is nothing hypocritical about that.


How? You just stated that. No proof. We've gone over this ground before. You can't claim what I say is crap without proof, unless you accept your statements are crap without proof.

Dude, it's like arguing with a goldfish. I listed a slew of articles where feminist organizations were fighting to get women into combat. That certainly is one of the 'bad things' you were talking about originally. The fact that you can't remember my links from YESTERDAY isn't a lack of proof. It's just your poor debate skills.

No. You can not accept that feminism is anything but your perfect view of it. I couldn't get you to accept that there are many women who would call themselves feminists while still wanting men to protect them. You basically kept saying "That's not feminism". English is a living language, and it's all about common usage, not just the way your friends think about it.

Hilarious. Really?

Of course, you didn't just yesterday claim you weren't talking about feminists when you were making these statements. Seriously, pick an argument and stick with it. Change your argument a few times a day is just sad.

And feminism is NOT perfect. No one claimed it was. So much for your strawman. However, it is not what you claim it is. It does not matter how many people outside the movement try to change what it is. The people who are feminists define what it is. You want the detractors to define what feminism is? What's next? Atheists get to define what Christianity is so long as they are in the majority? It doesn't work that way no matter how much you want to pretend it does. Your argument failed. Accept it and move on.

Meanwhile, the dictionary disagrees with your view of what is in the common usage.


What you are doing is using dirty tricks to shore up your weak argument. "Your post is so bad you're embarassing yourself". By resorting to such actions, you are showing the inherent weakness of your position and inabilty to rebut what I have said.

Am I? Yet, you can't show a single lick of evidence for your claims. Yet you have to pretend like evidence doesn't exist because I posted it YESTERDAY. Yet you have to completely change your arguments rather than admit you're wrong.

But, hey, I guess that could be a sign that you're doing great here. That's usually how a good debater like you works. His argument isn't solid and it keeps changes as he goes. Oh, wait, that's usually what happens when someone is losing an argument.

Let's see what I said...

It looks like I was suggesting something different might be concluded from the evidence, and then I showed what evidence I was talking about, I never claimed it was the end all of the possibilities.

When, in fact, 'the evidence' might suggest something not even vaguely related. Indeed, the 'evidence' is so non-specific, itis almost impossible to differentiate trends within it.

The fallacy comes from making a statement that the person must be a liar to have made the statement you are attacking.

No - not at all. In fact, you couldn't have been more wrong.

An ad hominem fallacy is the assertion that an argument is invalidated because of some perceived character trait or personal detail of the claimant.

Example: Grave is talking about ad hominems, but he is wrong, because he is fat.

How would Bottle know this, if she has NEVER been to bed with an anti-feminist?


This is the best you've got?

I happen to be fairly certain that someone I know is 'a crap shag'. I've not shagged him, I don't really swing that way... so how do I know?

Simple answer - and we really don't have to stretch too far for this - a couple of people I know have shagged him.

Did anyone else notice that CanuckHeaven repeatedly put feminist in quotes when referring to Bottle and once out and out said that she wasn't a feminist? That he repeatedly said she was bad for the cause? That she embodied a stereotype? That I was unwelcome in the movement because I defended her? And that he then stated that ad hominems, which he defines as any statement about the argument that he finds insulting, are not useful for meaningful debate?

60 pages of attacks on Bottle and myself and I point out that I caught him lying and I'm the one using ad hominems. I wish I'd thought of this as a joke. I'd be a genius.

Did anyone else notice that CanuckHeaven repeatedly put feminist in quotes when referring to Bottle and once out and out said that she wasn't a feminist? That he repeatedly said she was bad for the cause? That she embodied a stereotype? That I was unwelcome in the movement because I defended her? And that he then stated that ad hominems, which he defines as any statement about the argument that he finds insulting, are not useful for meaningful debate?

60 pages of attacks on Bottle and myself and I point out that I caught him lying and I'm the one using ad hominems. I wish I'd thought of this as a joke. I'd be a genius.

I think it's obvious. Canuck is the Only True Feminist among us. He gets to choose who is and isn't a feminist.

Jocabia

Was this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11884204&postcount=1235) aimed at me? Or was it aimed at CH and you put my name in instead?

If it was aimed at me then can you please address this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11885277&postcount=1274) as you have me plenty confused.

Oh my goodness, sometimes you make it so easy to refute you it’s silly. Lets see here, what did you say?

First you say this:


Second, I'm not calling him a liar.
But then you justify calling someone a liar by saying everyone lies so it doesn’t mean anything


Everyone lies. Many people do it on this forum. You lie. I lie. Everyone lies. I don't do it here, but trust me, if my mother asks me what I think about her job raising me, I lie. Does that make a liar? Well, technically, but the connotation of the term suggests that it's more than a person who is known to occasionally lie. Otherwise, the term would have no meaning.

So then you are calling him a liar then right? Why yes, yes you are..

Then you go on to make it even more clear that you are calling him a liar… But first you again say that you aren’t calling him a liar…


Now you may deduce that CanuckHeaven is a liar because he lied, but it is not one of my assumptions and it's not my argument.

Here you have left NO doubt that you are NOT calling him a liar, in your own words.

But then you go on to say this…


My argument is that he continually stated things he knew was false.

That means he was lying, and when a person is lying he is a liar…

Marriam-Webster
Main Entry: lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly•ing /'lI-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavic lugati
intransitive verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
transitive verb : to bring about by telling lies <lied his way out of trouble>


Main Entry: li•ar
Pronunciation: 'lI(-&)r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogere, from lEogan to lie -- more at LIE
: a person who tells lies

See, quite simple really, you called him a liar.


Then what else did you say? Lets see…


…He admitted they were false, yet he continually stated the opposite and when caught rather than admitted he was wrong pretended like he said something else only to get caught again.

Same old same old, you are still calling him a liar. You say he knows the truth and then tells a different story to deceive (reference the definitions above again if you like).


The ability to extrapolate from my statements about his debate doesn't make it an attack on him. I was focused on the statements he made. If you don't like that then you don't like debate. Now, please open a dictionary and use words properly in the future. Thank you.

You see, now YOU are saying a mistruth. And since you said you don’t tell lies here…


Everyone lies. I don't do it here…

And here is another example of you telling an untruth…

That's a deduction from my statement. An extrapolation. Much like one could extrapolate from a post exposing that a person's arguments are based on a complete lack of information that the person who made that argument is ignorant, however, that doesn't change that the post is focused on the argument. Nothing you extrapolate from my statements to be about CanuckHeaven will change the fact that I pointed at the posts, not the man.

You don’t ‘point’ at a post’s topic when you call it a LIE. In this case you made an unsubstantiated accusation about the post by choosing to call it a LIE, and therefore, you called the poster a liar. And since you repeatedly claim to NOT do that, as shown above, and since you claim to have a dictionary understanding of what the word means and we have seen the meaning of the words from the Marriam-Webster in this post, well, I guess you are the one ‘caught’ now. It seems, YOU are the one that has told a lie, and several of them as shown above…

That means he was lying, and when a person is lying he is a liar…

Marriam-Webster
Main Entry: lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly•ing /'lI-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavic lugati
intransitive verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
transitive verb : to bring about by telling lies <lied his way out of trouble>


Main Entry: li•ar
Pronunciation: 'lI(-&)r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogere, from lEogan to lie -- more at LIE
: a person who tells lies

See, quite simple really, you called him a liar.


This is not a logical progression. Must a liar tell lies, yes... but must someone who tells a lie be a 'liar'? Not necessarily - since 'liar' has strong connotations of being habitual.

All eagles are birds. But, not all birds are eagles.

Muravyets:

I'm a woman. Not only do I know how to use hand and power tools, I also know how to use precision sharp blades, how to paint and varnish, how to cook my own glues and pastels, and how to hand-forge models of the human skeleton in steel in an open-flame forge at 1000-1500 degrees Fahrenheit using hammers and tongs. I also know how to draw, sew, knit and do origami and paper marbling. And I also know how to design graphics and typography, lay out books, prep mechanicals for press, and so on. I learned all these things because I wanted to, and I wanted to because I am a professional artist.

*Drool* Marry me!:fluffle:

*Drool* Marry me!:fluffle:

Heh... get in line, bud. :)

An ad hominem fallacy is the assertion that an argument is invalidated because of some perceived character trait or personal detail of the claimant.
Exactly right...

Jocabia attempts to invalidate the post by calling it a lie, and we all know that a lie is an intentianal untruth, and are told by liars and are unrealiable sources of data. And once something is proven to be a lie we know we can dismiss it without refuting it. By using the word lie, but Jocabia's accusations of Lie are NOT proven though, in the end he is simply saying we should not believe this post because the poster is a teller of lies. Ad Hominem.

Grave_n_idle

All eagles are birds.[...]

Except in golf... Tsk tsk... such Generalization....

Joke!

This is not a logical progression. Must a liar tell lies, yes... but must someone who tells a lie be a 'liar'? Not necessarily - since 'liar' has strong connotations of being habitual.

All eagles are birds. But, not all birds are eagles.

False dichotomy, habitual is not in the dictionary as a part of the definition of lie or liar.

False dichotomy, habitual is not in the dictionary as a part of the definition of lie or liar.

But common usage rarely bows to the gods of the dictionary.

Exactly right...

Jocabia attempts to invalidate the post by calling it a lie, and we all know that a lie is an intentianal untruth, and are told by liars and are unrealiable sources of data. And once something is proven to be a lie we know we can dismiss it without refuting it. By using the word lie, but Jocabia's accusations of Lie are NOT proven though, in the end he is simply saying we should not believe this post because the poster is a teller of lies. Ad Hominem.

Calling something a 'lie' is not ad hominem.

Calling someone 'a liar' is only an ad hominem attack if it is not supported by the facts.

There is no ad hominem fallacy unless that assertion of 'being a liar' is used as an argument to invalidate some argument by the alleged liar.

Calling something a 'lie' is not ad hominem.

Calling someone 'a liar' is only an ad hominem attack if it is not supported by the facts.

Exactly right again. Jocabia says it is a lie, he says that the poster knows it was an untruth when they said it, and then Jocabia does NOT prove that the poster knew it was a lie so in is an unsupported accusation. Ad hominem.

There is no ad hominem fallacy unless that assertion of 'being a liar' is used as an argument to invalidate some argument by the alleged liar.

The word Lie does exactly that. It is an assertion that the post/quote is an untruth intentially told and is therefore invalidated.

First off, let me tell you flat out, that I think that sexism, racism, and anti-semitism are all bad, and each have their own characteristics and problems.

I really didn't want to get sidetracked into any comparisons of those topics as they are unrelated to the topic "modern day feminism". Although sexism is a serious issue, I truly believe that racism is far more prevalent and harmful to our societies. When you toss religion and politics into the racial equations one can easily see what are the greatest problems facing the people of earth today. This might give you an example of what I am referring to:

List of ethnic slurs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs)

At any rate, that is my take on the situation and if you have any numbers or stats that suggest otherwise, I would be willing to look at them.
Oh, well then I WAS wrong about you.

You are not lying when you say that.

But you are a sexist who conveniently ignores the facts of history in order to promote his pet attitudes, just as you, very honestly, presented yourself to be.

Thanks for setting me straight.

Exactly right again. Jocabia says it is a lie, he says that the poster knows it was an untruth when they said it, and then Jocabia does NOT prove that the poster knew it was a lie so in is an unsupported accusation. Ad hominem.


But, knowing a thing is untrue is not actually required for a thing to be a lie. If I tell you I am a woman, and you tell someone else... it is still a lie when it passes your lips.

The only evidence that would be required is veracity... not intent.


The word Lie does exactly that. It is an assertion that the post/quote is an untruth intentially told and is therefore invalidated.

I disagree with how you read 'lie'. I also disagree that that would be an ad hominem fallacy, anyway.

Well, I am truly sorry that you see it that way, but it is my contention that Bottle deliberately set out to bash the OP in the most demeaning manner. Despite what Bottle may claim to the contrary, here is one example where she contradicts herself:
<snip>
Yes, yes, we've read all these quotes before, several times, thanks to you. You're still wrong, though, in the precise ways that Bottle, Jocabia, GnI, and Bitchkitten have all explained, repeatedly.

So Mura, if ya want to think that Bottle is a straight shooter on this topic, be my guest, but I think that she has clearly confirmed most of what I was contending.

Anyways, that is my story and I am sticking to it, despite any brow beatings I might incur.
Well, that's rather honorable of you, as well as convenient for the rest of us. Do with yourself as you please.

Can you support this claim, specifically? Most top end jobs require a high degree of sacrifice of ones personal life for professional success. If you're getting paid $200 000 a year, and the project has to be finished tomorrow, you don't say I need to go home to my children.

<snip>

In the US and, I believe, Japan. This attitude is frequently cited by sociologists and psychologists as one of the leading causes of severe depression among white collar workers, as well as divorce and job burnout/failure. In many parts of Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America (all quite civilized places), this attitude is considered crazy. A person who does not put their family first is looked at askance. Whole business meetings are often rescheduled due to personal family concerns, and family leave and company-supported childcare and eldercare services are, to my US eye, amazingly generous, allowing both parents to work AND still care for their children or dependent elders. After all, what the hell are we putting ourselves through all this pressure for, if not the good of our families? Clearly, the people we love should matter more to us than some faceless corporation which is no different from any other.

It annoys me no end the way people assume that THEIR way of doing things is the only way. The American "work ethic" is NOT the only way to live, and judging by the social problems it obviously causes, it's not necessarily the best way, either.

Originally Posted by Transcendant Pilgrims
*Drool* Marry me!
Heh... get in line, bud. :)
You guys are fun. At this rate, I'll have to get one of those number-dispensing thingies they use in delis. Y'all so silly.

But, knowing a thing is untrue is not actually required for a thing to be a lie. If I tell you I am a woman, and you tell someone else... it is still a lie when it passes your lips.

No it is not a lie when it passes the second and unknowing persons lips. Then it is untrue, erroneous, wrong, false, mistaken or simply, incorrect. It was said in good faith by the second person, it might have been hearsay and should be described as such, but it is NOT a lie.

From websters again: 1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive.

I disagree with how you read 'lie'. I also disagree that that would be an ad hominem fallacy, anyway.

Calling a post/quote a lie, when you really think it is a lie and you think you can prove it's a lie, would not in fact be an ad hominem attack. To call a post you know you can’t prove to be a lie, and you may or may not believe it on your part, would be an ad hominem attack because you call it a lie intentionally to discredit the opinion without addressing the opinion nor proving the lie was real or imaginary. That is how Jocabia has been shown to be doing it, he says he is doing one thing and then immediately does another simply for the affect of discrediting a poster’s opinion, its an attack.

In the US and, I believe, Japan. This attitude is frequently cited by sociologists and psychologists as one of the leading causes of severe depression among white collar workers, as well as divorce and job burnout/failure. In many parts of Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America (all quite civilized places), this attitude is considered crazy. A person who does not put their family first is looked at askance. Whole business meetings are often rescheduled due to personal family concerns, and family leave and company-supported childcare and eldercare services are, to my US eye, amazingly generous, allowing both parents to work AND still care for their children or dependent elders. After all, what the hell are we putting ourselves through all this pressure for, if not the good of our families? Clearly, the people we love should matter more to us than some faceless corporation which is no different from any other.

It annoys me no end the way people assume that THEIR way of doing things is the only way. The American "work ethic" is NOT the only way to live, and judging by the social problems it obviously causes, it's not necessarily the best way, either.

We need to export the brains that do this sort of thinking to the rest of the world and keep all the productive people here in America. What is your problem with corporations? Do you never want to retire? Stock and corporate bonds are how people save and invest for retirement. When you give your all for a corporation you can feel proud that you are generating stockholder wealth and securing their hopes for retirement. You will also earn bonuses and be promoted. What are you, some kind of a commie hippie pinko liberal or something?

We had corporations long before we had a lot of divorces. Divorces skyrocketed after 60s generation liberals like the feminists decided that their own personal fickle whims are more important than traditional patrirachical family values. People worked harder in America when there were lower divorce rates. Ever look into how hard working we were in the early 20th century and then there was a lot of stigma attached to divorce. Now everywhere you look you run into the divorced.

Exactly right...

Jocabia attempts to invalidate the post by calling it a lie, and we all know that a lie is an intentianal untruth, and are told by liars and are unrealiable sources of data. And once something is proven to be a lie we know we can dismiss it without refuting it. By using the word lie, but Jocabia's accusations of Lie are NOT proven though, in the end he is simply saying we should not believe this post because the poster is a teller of lies. Ad Hominem.
No. An ad hominem attack would be if I attempted to invalidate this post of yours on the grounds that you are an idiot, without actually showing anything in the post itself that is idiotic.

In fact, there is no clear proof in this post that you are an idiot. There is only proof that you are Pootwaddle. What you are doing, and have been doing, here is text-book Pootwaddleism -- you are simply ignoring every word written by your opponents that does invalidate your claims. We prove you wrong; you continue to post your invalidated arguments; we point out that we have proved you wrong; and you claim we didn't and force us to repeat ourselves ad infinitum, or until we get sick of kicking you around.

I will post the summary of disproofs for you, again, here, and for the last time:

1) "Liar" implies deliberate habit. A person can tell A LIE, without being A LIAR. That is the way the English language works, your claims otherwise notwithstanding. Therefore, when Jocabia calls CH's statements lies, he is NOT automatically calling CH a liar. He is attacking the statements, not the person. Period.

2) Yes, we all know that a lie is an intentional untruth. By repeating his remarks AFTER they have been shown to be untrue, CH is deliberately repeating an untruth, i.e. telling a lie. Thank you for proving yourself wrong this time. It's nice to share the labor.

The above two points invalidate your entire argument against Jocabia and have done so for several pages now. I do not, however, expect you to acknowledge this and concede because you are Pootwaddle, and you never concede. But to save typing from now on, I invite all here to simply link to this post in answer to all your future posts, which are likely to be just rehashes of past posts anyway, judging by your usual tactics.

1) "Liar" implies deliberate habit. A person can tell A LIE, without being A LIAR. That is the way the English language works, your claims otherwise notwithstanding. Therefore, when Jocabia calls CH's statements lies, he is NOT automatically calling CH a liar. He is attacking the statements, not the person. Period.


What would be the word used to describe someone who has only lied once?

What would be the word used to describe someone who has only lied once?
"Rare."

;)

We need to export the brains that do this sort of thinking to the rest of the world and keep all the productive people here in America. What is your problem with corporations? Do you never want to retire? Stock and corporate bonds are how people save and invest for retirement. When you give your all for a corporation you can feel proud that you are generating stockholder wealth and securing their hopes for retirement. You will also earn bonuses and be promoted. What are you, some kind of a commie hippie pinko liberal or something?

We had corporations long before we had a lot of divorces. Divorces skyrocketed after 60s generation liberals like the feminists decided that their own personal fickle whims are more important than traditional patrirachical family values. People worked harder in America when there were lower divorce rates. Ever look into how hard working we were in the early 20th century and then there was a lot of stigma attached to divorce. Now everywhere you look you run into the divorced.
Wow, I didn't think you could come up with yet more bullshit on this one topic, but I was wrong. And you're even less coherent, too. Amazing.

No it is not a lie when it passes the second and unknowing persons lips. Then it is untrue, erroneous, wrong, false, mistaken or simply, incorrect. It was said in good faith by the second person, it might have been hearsay and should be described as such, but it is NOT a lie.

From websters again: 1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive.


Why do you choose to ignore the other definition?

If we look at Meeriam Webster:

"Main Entry: 3lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing /'lI-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavic lugati
intransitive verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
transitive verb : to bring about by telling lies <lied his way out of trouble>
synonyms LIE, PREVARICATE, EQUIVOCATE, PALTER, FIB mean to tell an untruth. LIE is the blunt term, imputing dishonesty <lied about where he had been>. PREVARICATE softens the bluntness of LIE by implying quibbling or confusing the issue <during the hearings the witness did his best to prevaricate>. EQUIVOCATE implies using words having more than one sense so as to seem to say one thing but intend another <equivocated endlessly in an attempt to mislead her inquisitors>. PALTER implies making unreliable statements of fact or intention or insincere promises <a swindler paltering with his investors>. FIB applies to a telling of a trivial untruth <fibbed about the price of the new suit>.

The 'synonym' section is an illustration of something I was saying... even aside from dictionaries, there are received implications of words.


Calling a post/quote a lie, when you really think it is a lie and you think you can prove it's a lie, would not in fact be an ad hominem attack. To call a post you know you can’t prove to be a lie, and you may or may not believe it on your part, would be an ad hominem attack because you call it a lie intentionally to discredit the opinion without addressing the opinion nor proving the lie was real or imaginary. That is how Jocabia has been shown to be doing it, he says he is doing one thing and then immediately does another simply for the affect of discrediting a poster’s opinion, its an attack.

Again, I disagree with your assertions. One might call something a 'lie' purely as a form of challenge... a 'prove it' with attitude.

Regardless of which... if the alleged 'liar' cannot prove their assertions when challenged... how can the accusation of lying be discredited? And, if not discredited, and the refutation is logical... how can this be a fallacy?

Wow...watching this 'NS Regular Royal Rumble' is great and all...but...bleh. People...yes, CH is an ass, and has proven himself so on a number of occasions...surely that fact doesn't warrant 50 pages?

.
...
The above two points invalidate your entire argument against Jocabia and have done so for several pages now. I do not, however, expect you to acknowledge this and concede because you are Pootwaddle, and you never concede. But to save typing from now on, I invite all here to simply link to this post in answer to all your future posts, which are likely to be just rehashes of past posts anyway, judging by your usual tactics.

You are incorrect, you are mistaken, you have chosen unwisely. However, I think you believe what you are posting and I certainly can't prove that you do not believe what you are posting, so I won't say your post is a lie. Only wrong.


Isn't it nice how that works out then? :)

"Rare."

;)

Too True.
To rephrase: What is the descriptive word for someone who you catch in a lie?

Originally Posted by Free Randomers
What would be the word used to describe someone who has only lied once?
"Rare."

;)
Good one. :D


To FR, there is no single word for someone who has only lied once. You would describe such a person as "someone who has only lied once." Aren't you an English speaker? I would have expected you to know that.

You guys are fun. At this rate, I'll have to get one of those number-dispensing thingies they use in delis. Y'all so silly.

:)

No... no number thingies... we've got the order all sorted out already, thanks... and we aren't taking chances of these new interlopers managing to jump the queue. ;)

:)

No... no number thingies... we've got the order all sorted out already, thanks... and we aren't taking chances of these new interlopers managing to jump the queue. ;)

Ah shuddup.

Wow, I didn't think you could come up with yet more bullshit on this one topic, but I was wrong. And you're even less coherent, too. Amazing.

How are the following points incoherent BS:

1. Corporate activity benefits investors; and
2. Investments are primarily used for retirement; and
3. Productive workers help corporations generate wealth; and
4. Productive workers help to secure the retirement of investors; and
5. There is no relationship between hard work and divorce because people used to work longer hours but had less divorces?

Good one. :D


To FR, there is no single word for someone who has only lied once. You would describe such a person as "someone who has only lied once." Aren't you an English speaker? I would have expected you to know that.

As I said - I realised after posting that my statement could be taken to mean 'a person who has only ever told a single lie' as opposed to a single lie in a conversation or in the area under discussion etc etc.

To rephrase - what is the word you would use to describe to someone you catch in a lie?

As I said - I realised after posting that my statement could be taken to mean 'a person who has only ever told a single lie' as opposed to a single lie in a conversation or in the area under discussion etc etc.

To rephrase - what is the word you would use to describe to someone you catch in a lie?

Umm Liar!:rolleyes:

:)

No... no number thingies... we've got the order all sorted out already, thanks... and we aren't taking chances of these new interlopers managing to jump the queue. ;)
What! No cries of "Now marrying number 157! 157 next! 157? No? 158!"?

...even aside from dictionaries, there are received implications of words.
...


Exactly. The received implications are why Jocabia uses the word lie in the first place. The intended implications are an attack against the poster instead of the topic of the post itself. Ad hominem.

Exactly. The received implications are why Jocabia uses the word lie in the first place. The intended implications are an attack against the poster instead of the topic of the post itself. Ad hominem.

No non that's not true, there was no Ad hominem, you you .... lair, and you got bad hair too.

Muuuwhahahah! :eek:

Exactly. The received implications are why Jocabia uses the word lie in the first place. The intended implications are an attack against the poster instead of the topic of the post itself. Ad hominem.

That is how you choose to take it, perhaps.

Which isn't automatically the same as the commonly received implication... which might explain why (what is it...) two(?) people insist on one interpretation, against a barrage of "ummm, no" from most others.

What! No cries of "Now marrying number 157! 157 next! 157? No? 158!"?

'Come in, number 13... your time is up'? :D

No non that's not true, there was no Ad hominem, you you .... lair, and you got bad hair too.

Muuuwhahahah! :eek:

;)

As I said - I realised after posting that my statement could be taken to mean 'a person who has only ever told a single lie' as opposed to a single lie in a conversation or in the area under discussion etc etc.

To rephrase - what is the word you would use to describe to someone you catch in a lie?
Sigh. All right, for the children:

Let's say, just for argument, that you are an honest person. Let's say you are late for a meeting with me, and you tell me it's because you got stuck in traffic, but you know the truth is that you had forgotten about the appointment. You have told a lie. Perhaps you did it to save face or to save my feelings, but it is a lie nonetheless. At the moment that the lie is revealed to me, I may legitimately point at you and yell, "LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE!"

HOWEVER, let us say that this is the ONLY lie you have ever told in your life. In that case, if I continue calling you a liar and go around telling other people you are a liar on the basis of just that one incident, then I would be the one telling a lie, because a "liar" is a person who TELLS LIES, not a person who TOLD A LIE ONCE.

By the way, this is another for-the-last-time post. This distinction has been made clear by several people several times already.

Exactly. The received implications are why Jocabia uses the word lie in the first place. The intended implications are an attack against the poster instead of the topic of the post itself. Ad hominem.
No, because:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11886194&postcount=1313

Sigh. All right, for the children:

Let's say, just for argument, that you are an honest person. Let's say you are late for a meeting with me, and you tell me it's because you got stuck in traffic, but you know the truth is that you had forgotten about the appointment. You have told a lie. Perhaps you did it to save face or to save my feelings, but it is a lie nonetheless. At the moment that the lie is revealed to me, I may legitimately point at you and yell, "LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE!"

HOWEVER, let us say that this is the ONLY lie you have ever told in your life. In that case, if I continue calling you a liar and go around telling other people you are a liar on the basis of just that one incident, then I would be the one telling a lie, because a "liar" is a person who TELLS LIES, not a person who TOLD A LIE ONCE.

By the way, this is another for-the-last-time post. This distinction has been made clear by several people several times already.

At the risk of pruning too much from an elegant response...

It basically seems to come down to the difference between activity and history... Grave lied... Grave IS a liar. If it is a trend, if it is ongoing... 'liar' might seem more appropriate.

'Come in, number 13... your time is up'? :D
That's right, babe. You snooze, you lose. ;)

How are the following points incoherent BS:

1. Corporate activity benefits investors; and
2. Investments are primarily used for retirement; and
3. Productive workers help corporations generate wealth; and
4. Productive workers help to secure the retirement of investors; and
5. There is no relationship between hard work and divorce because people used to work longer hours but had less divorces?

Very simply by the facts that:

A) You show no causitive relationship between any of them. They are just a list of non sequitors.

B) They are completely unrelated to the thread topic, arguably even more so than this dumbass "lie/liar" argument that's been going on.

Sigh. All right, for the children:

Let's say, just for argument, that you are an honest person. Let's say you are late for a meeting with me, and you tell me it's because you got stuck in traffic, but you know the truth is that you had forgotten about the appointment. You have told a lie. Perhaps you did it to save face or to save my feelings, but it is a lie nonetheless. At the moment that the lie is revealed to me, I may legitimately point at you and yell, "LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE!"

By the way, this is another for-the-last-time post. This distinction has been made clear by several people several times already.
I think using a 'little white lie' from someone you know to demonstrate the innappropriatenes of 'liar' = person who tells one lie is a bit idealistic.

Say... You don't know someone very well and they tell you a lie that has a malicious intent - and you catch them in that lie. Is it wrong to call them a liar?

For example - you ask the relative of a suspected murderer if they know where the murder weapon is, if they do know but say they do not are they a liar?

If someone accuses someone of lying over a single incident the accused can reasonably say "Are you calling me a liar?"

I know 'Liar' is normally used to refer to a notably untrustworthy person, but I do not think it is incorrect to use it to refer to a person you have caught in a lie.

As I said - I realised after posting that my statement could be taken to mean 'a person who has only ever told a single lie' as opposed to a single lie in a conversation or in the area under discussion etc etc.

To rephrase - what is the word you would use to describe to someone you catch in a lie?
At the moment, I'd call him CanuckHeaven.

The fact is, I catch people in lies all the time, but I do not call them "liars" until I have caught them at it a sufficient number of times. You are not going to get me to agree with your simplistic attempt to get me to say otherwise because that is just not the mainstream way the English language is used.

I have met a few individuals who claim that that just one lie is enough, in their minds, to condemn a person as a "liar" forever. Such people are universally considered "unreasonable pains in the ass." In my personal experience, I know of two such people who were proven to be actually lying when they claimed that "one lie = liar." It turned out they didn't really think that way at all, and just as readily excused occasional lies as everybody else did.

I have zero tolerance for feminists. That being said, I should qualify it by saying I have zero tolerance for the feminists of today. Women should be able to own property and vote the same as men. And women should not be beaten for failing to cook dinner on time. The thing is though is that these reforms have already occurred.

My question is who marries these feministy wackos? I never would have considered dating one and if any of my friends were with one I would wonder why he would be with one. None of my friends ever dated one or would want to. Sure they might use one for their body or something but not have a serious relationship.

Anybody that marries a feminist is probably going to get divorced anyway so why bother. First, they think it is ok to divorce for trivial reasons. Second, a man would get so sick of all the liberal psycho-babble around the vegetarian dinner table that his only choices would be to either divorce the nutjob or kill himself.

So if there are any guys out there that are in a relationship with a feminist, please let me know why you are. I am not interested in hearing from unmarried/lesbian/single feminists because that just goes to show that feminists are just not interested in relationships with men. I guess if you are a feminist and you happen to be in a serious relationship with a man I would be interested in hearing from you too.

Well, speaking as a bloke and a member of my university's Feminist Society (the Propaganda Officer with Special Responsibility for Posters, no less)...

You're funny. :p

I don't think I've met a single one of these feminist nutjobs you're ranting about, and the only one I've ever heard of was the founder of SCUM (the one who shot Andy Warhol).

I'm currently in a very pleasant relationship with one of the Feminist Society's founder members, and see no reason why I shouldn't be.

Of course, it helps that I'm an anarchist and thus automatically a feminist as well... :p

At the risk of pruning too much from an elegant response...

It basically seems to come down to the difference between activity and history... Grave lied... Grave IS a liar. If it is a trend, if it is ongoing... 'liar' might seem more appropriate.
True, but I don't think our audience is one to glean much from minimalist explanations. They seem to want to be led down the path, step by step.

At the moment, I'd call him CanuckHeaven.

The fact is, I catch people in lies all the time, but I do not call them "liars" until I have caught them at it a sufficient number of times. You are not going to get me to agree with your simplistic attempt to get me to say otherwise because that is just not the mainstream way the English language is used.

I have met a few individuals who claim that that just one lie is enough, in their minds, to condemn a person as a "liar" forever. Such people are universally considered "unreasonable pains in the ass." In my personal experience, I know of two such people who were proven to be actually lying when they claimed that "one lie = liar." It turned out they didn't really think that way at all, and just as readily excused occasional lies as everybody else did.
I agree with the premise - but I do not think it is wrong for someone to also use the word 'liar' as an adjative of someone who they catch lying once, but not as a character trait.

I think it also depends on the extent of the lie and how well you know that person. If you know them well and they tell a small lie when they are normally honest then 'liar' is not a great word' If you have just met them and they tell you a big lie with malicious intent and you catch them in it then it is reasonable.

I agree with the premise - but I do not think it is wrong for someone to also use the word 'liar' as an adjative of someone who they catch lying once, but not as a character trait.

I think it also depends on the extent of the lie and how well you know that person. If you know them well and they tell a small lie when they are normally honest then 'liar' is not a great word' If you have just met them and they tell you a big lie with malicious intent and you catch them in it then it is reasonable.
You agree with the premise to such an extent that it comprises my entire argument. IOW, you agree with me. I will take this as a concession of the point.

A few clarifications: If the use of "lie/liar" is not automatically a description of a negative character trait, then Pootwaddle's accusations against Jocabia are invalidated. Also, since the usage of "liar" is dependent on context and history, it may be successfully argued that a person who tells one big, malicious lie (i.e. not "a little white lie"), is very likely to have told other malicious lies as well and thus legitimately qualify for the title "liar." The reason we may assume this is presence of "malice" which in and of itself is a negative character trait pre-requisite to the telling of malicious lies.

....it may be successfully argued that a person who tells one big, malicious lie (i.e. not "a little white lie"), is very likely to have told other malicious lies as well and thus legitimately qualify for the title "liar." The reason we may assume this is presence of "malice" which in and of itself is a negative character trait pre-requisite to the telling of malicious lies.

Thank you. THAT is exactly why Jocabia uses the word lie when he attacks another posters opinion. It's an attempt to discredit the legitimacy of the poster by claiming/implying he lies, and thus, the point. Ad hominem.

Thank you. THAT is exactly why Jocabia uses the word lie when he attacks another posters opinion. It's an attempt to discredit the legitimacy of the poster by claiming/implying he lies, and thus, the point. Ad hominem.

i've noticed.

Thank you. THAT is exactly why Jocabia uses the word lie when he attacks another posters opinion. It's an attempt to discredit the legitimacy of the poster by claiming/implying he lies, and thus, the point. Ad hominem.

No, because:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11886194&postcount=1313

You can't ride this horse any further. Get a new one.

Thank you. THAT is exactly why Jocabia uses the word lie when he attacks another posters opinion. It's an attempt to discredit the legitimacy of the poster by claiming/implying he lies, and thus, the point. Ad hominem.

Yet again, you state as fact, what you BELIEVE to be Jocabia's motivation.

Which is actually quite ironic - because - if you are wrong you are a liar, and Jocabia has a strong case for calling your entire output thus far, ad hominem...

Can you PROVE Jocabia lies about what he is representing? When he says the other poster lies... can you show this to be not the case?

I think it's obvious. Canuck is the Only True Feminist among us. He gets to choose who is and isn't a feminist.

I'm learning so much in this thread. First, I found out that I must have a penis because I'm actually interested in and good at science. Now, I've apparently learned that I am also not a feminist. =)

I'm learning so much in this thread. First, I found out that I must have a penis because I'm actually interested in and good at science. Now, I've apparently learned that I am also not a feminist. =)

I'm a feminist also, i love wimmin!:p

:)

No... no number thingies... we've got the order all sorted out already, thanks... and we aren't taking chances of these new interlopers managing to jump the queue. ;)

Muravyets is the perfect reason to legalize polygamy. =)

Oh, and same-sex marriage, cuz then I could marry her too!

I'm learning so much in this thread. First, I found out that I must have a penis because I'm actually interested in and good at science. Now, I've apparently learned that I am also not a feminist. =)

It's depressing how little you knew. :(

Luckily, the error of your ways is being revealed. ;)

Muravyets is the perfect reason to legalize polygamy. =)

Oh, and same-sex marriage, cuz then I could marry her too!

Argh! Polygamy! Why didn't I think of that?

I was wondering how I was going to get this past the wife...

Yet again, you state as fact, what you BELIEVE to be Jocabia's motivation.

Which is actually quite ironic - because - if you are wrong you are a liar, and Jocabia has a strong case for calling your entire output thus far, ad hominem...

Can you PROVE Jocabia lies about what he is representing? When he says the other poster lies... can you show this to be not the case?

I can do better than simply claim proof, I already showed it. Jocabia does not believe his own accusations and doesn't want to call the poster a liar, and thus, refuting his own ability to believe in the 'lie' accusation he made himself.

I showed it here... http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11885906&postcount=1296

EDIT: side note. Do you really want us to get into counting how many times and how many people Jocabia calls a liar by saying they lied? Essentially I think we will end up discussing why he seems to believe everyone he argues with on this forum is a liar... It seems to be a regular or maybe even a favorite tactic of his to post that someone else's post is a lie.

Muravyets is the perfect reason to legalize polygamy. =)

Oh, and same-sex marriage, cuz then I could marry her too!

Now cut that out! *blushes*

I can do better than simply claim proof, I already showed it. Jocabia does not believe his own accusations and doesn't want to call the poster a liar, and thus, refuting his own ability to believe in the 'lie' accusation he made himself.

I showed it here... http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11885906&postcount=1296

On the contrary - Jocabia's words, as cited in that post, clearly show that he differentiates between 'a lie' and 'a liar'.

Thus, in your consistent misrepresentation of his perpective, despite his protestations, it could be strongly argued you "make an untrue statement with intent to deceive". (I believe this is the definition you favour?)

The question then is - is this just 'a lie'? Or are you 'a liar'?

Now cut that out! *blushes*

Aw! I don't get to share you with Dem? :(

Argh! Polygamy! Why didn't I think of that?

I was wondering how I was going to get this past the wife...
No way I'm supporting the lot of ya's. You all better keep your jobs like good little feminists/egalitarians. ;)

Sex, race, religion, eye-color, or left/right-handedness, all are just convenient tags for creating an "out" group, so the bigot can cement his position with the "in" group.

Don't you really mean "cement her position with the "in" group"? :p

BTW: citing certain practices of a few aberrant cultures (likely incompletely and out of context at that), to the extent your descriptions of them are even accurate, is hardly persuasive. Sex differences exist, despite your apparent wish that they didn't. Recent research establishes the fact.

Aw! I don't get to share you with Dem? :(
*warning finger* Kids read this forum. We'll discuss logistics some other time.

*warning finger* Kids read this forum. We'll discuss logistics some other time.

Kids should be at school, now. We are safe for another hour or so...

:D

On the contrary - Jocabia's words, as cited in that post, clearly show that he differentiates between 'a lie' and 'a liar'.

Thus, in your consistent misrepresentation of his perpective, despite his protestations, it could be strongly argued you "make an untrue statement with intent to deceive". (I believe this is the definition you favour?)

The question then is - is this just 'a lie'? Or are you 'a liar'?

Since he tries to differentiates between a lie and calling the person who said the quote a liar, he must not believe the lie was in fact a real lie. He can't have it both ways. You can't say, what you just said is a lie, and you did it on purpose, but, I am not calling you a liar. The fact that he pretends that as his defense proves that he didn't believe his own accusation in the first place, thus, it was an attack not a real attempt to expose an intentional lie. Ad hominem.

Don't you really mean "cement her position with the "in" group"? :p
No, just like when I refer to "NM," I do not really mean "person who is not a blathering, trolling nutjob who couldn't put together a coherent argument if his life depended on it."

BTW: citing certain practices of a few aberrant cultures (likely incompletely and out of context at that),
You have no evidence of "aberrance" or lack of context.

to the extent your descriptions of them are even accurate, is hardly persuasive.
You have no argument against the point I made...

Sex differences exist, despite your apparent wish that they didn't. Recent research establishes the fact.
... As evidenced by the fact that you are attempting to attack a point I DID NOT make.

Next.

Since he tries to differentiates between a lie and calling the person who said the quote a liar, he must not believe the lie was in fact a real lie. He can't have it both ways. You can't say, what you just said is a lie, and you did it on purpose, but, I am not calling you a liar. The fact that he pretends that as his defense proves that he didn't believe his own accusation in the first place, thus, it was an attack not a real attempt to expose an intentional lie. Ad hominem.

You are still worng, I'm afraid -and getting wronger.

He CAN have it both ways. He CAN say "what you just said is a lie, and you did it on purpose, but, I am not calling you a liar". There is nothing to stop him, and he gets to choose how he applies certain terms. If he goes ahead and EXPLAINS that, also - I really do not see how you think you have a leg to stand on.

I differentiate between 'a lie' and 'a liar'... and I suspect MOST parents do. If my eight-year-old daughter tells me something untrue, I may call her on it. I may tell her she is lying. But - since she is fundamentally an honest child, I don't refer to her as 'a liar'... because her behaviour was isolated, and non-habitual, non-exemplary.

I'm beginning to think you KNOW you have no argument... and just don't want to be caught in a lie of your own.

You can't say, what you just said is a lie, and you did it on purpose, but, I am not calling you a liar.

Sure you can, and Jocabia did.

It's actually quite common to do so. I've heard parents, on more than one occasion say something like, "You just lied to me. Why would you do that? You're not a liar."

Since he tries to differentiates between a lie and calling the person who said the quote a liar, he must not believe the lie was in fact a real lie. He can't have it both ways. You can't say, what you just said is a lie, and you did it on purpose, but, I am not calling you a liar. The fact that he pretends that as his defense proves that he didn't believe his own accusation in the first place, thus, it was an attack not a real attempt to expose an intentional lie. Ad hominem.
No, because:

Need I link to it again? At this point, it's like playing fetch with you. You keep bringing back the same stick and you keep demanding that we throw it again so you can bring it back again. But it's still the same old stick.

Sex differences exist...


Praise Merciful Zeus!


...despite your apparent wish that they didn't.

I'm not sure Muravyets has ever expressed a wish that the sexes were identical?

Sure you can, and Jocabia did.

It's actually quite common to do so. I've heard parents, on more than one occasion say something like, "You just lied to me. Why would you do that? You're not a liar."

Exactly. For once - I beat you to it. :)

You are still worng, I'm afraid -and getting wronger.

He CAN have it both ways. He CAN say "what you just said is a lie, and you did it on purpose, but, I am not calling you a liar". There is nothing to stop him, and he gets to choose how he applies certain terms. If he goes ahead and EXPLAINS that, also - I really do not see how you think you have a leg to stand on.

I differentiate between 'a lie' and 'a liar'... and I suspect MOST parents do. If my eight-year-old daughter tells me something untrue, I may call her on it. I may tell her she is lying. But - since she is fundamentally an honest child, I don't refer to her as 'a liar'... because her behaviour was isolated, and non-habitual, non-exemplary.

I'm beginning to think you KNOW you have no argument... and just don't want to be caught in a lie of your own.
Of course he has no argument. He never did, but that won't stop him. We've chased round this Pootwaddlian barn with him before.

Exactly. For once - I beat you to it. :)

=) It's gotta happen sometimes. =)

Praise Merciful Zeus!



I'm not sure Muravyets has ever expressed a wish that the sexes were identical?
Heaven forfend. Variety is the spice of life.

Praise Merciful Zeus!
I'm not sure Muravyets has ever expressed a wish that the sexes were identical?

earlier people were posting about role models. some thought that certain values could only be passed on by certain sexes. which i would agree.

earlier people were posting about role models. some thought that certain values could only be passed on by certain sexes. which i would agree.

Then certainly you can name one? Just a single value that only a member of one sex can possibly pass on?

Then certainly you can name one? Just a single value that only a member of one sex can possibly pass on?

fathers should teach thier sons about honour, respect, and how to talk to women properly.

...
I differentiate between 'a lie' and 'a liar'... and I suspect MOST parents do. If my eight-year-old daughter tells me something untrue, I may call her on it. ...

Sure you can, and Jocabia did.

It's actually quite common to do so. I've heard parents, on more than one occasion say something like, "You just lied to me. Why would you do that? You're not a liar."


So now your argument is that Jocabia is somehow the equivalent of CH's parent or takes a parental position over him? So it's okay for Jocabia to reprimand/attack CH's opinion with the lie accusation because what? Jocabia's fatherly love instinct?

Absurd. And it clearly shows how weak your positions are. You (you being your side) have crawled OUT of the dictionary for definitions of lie and liar, you have excused yourselves from forum behavior examples, and OUT of adult debate methodology altogether, in order to try and explain how Jocabia can try and justify habitually libeling the posts of other adults and public forum poster's post with the accusation of lie in this forum. Interesting that you get so desperate to approve the bad behavior. Honestly mind boggling.

earlier people were posting about role models. some thought that certain values could only be passed on by certain sexes. which i would agree.

I might - depending on the values. A father, for example, might be able to teach a son better how to masturbate, or pee higher than his head.

But then, even arguing that the assertion there are gender-specific-values is rubbish... is NOT the same as perceiving (or wishing for..?) no sexual differences between genders.

Of course he has no argument. He never did, but that won't stop him. We've chased round this Pootwaddlian barn with him before.

Interesting. Do you think yourself to be any less stubborn then you think I am? Silly, it takes two to tango.

So now your argument is that Jocabia is somehow the equivalent of CH's parent or takes a parental position over him? So it's okay for Jocabia to reprimand/attack CH's opinion with the lie accusation because what? Jocabia's fatherly love instinct?

Absurd. And it clearly shows how weak your positions are. You (you being your side) have crawled OUT of the dictionary for definitions of lie and liar, you have excused yourselves from forum behavior examples, and OUT of adult debate methodology altogether, in order to try and explain how Jocabia can try and justify habitually libeling the posts of other adults and public forum poster's post with the accusation of lie in this forum. Interesting that you get so desperate to approve the bad behavior. Honestly mind boggling.

i vaguely know whats going on. but you have my support. although my support has little value.

Heaven forfend. Variety is the spice of life.

It has to be said - for many, it is those 'little differences' that are a large part of the appeal. :)

fathers should teach thier sons about honour, respect, and how to talk to women properly.

So - I am overextended in teaching my daughter about honour and respect? And her mother should have nothing to say on the matter?

I think you are offering a poorly-realised argument.

i vaguely know whats going on. but you have my support. although my support has little value.

Support is always welcome, thank you :)

fathers should teach thier sons about honour, respect, and how to talk to women properly.

And how are women incapable of teaching about honor, respect, and how to talk to them properly?


So now your argument is that Jocabia is somehow the equivalent of CH's parent or takes a parental position over him?

No, and you know it isn't. The point is that people quite often will point out that someone is lying, without any intention of calling them a "liar." Why? Because, in general usage, liar is used most often to refer to a habitual liar, not a single lie.

The same is true for all sorts of things. A person who steals one thing is generally not going to be labeled a thief. In fact, someone might say, "Why would you steal that? You're not a thief!"

Every person has, at some point in time, broken a law. But we don't refer to ourselves or others as criminals on a general basis. In fact, we generally reserve that term for those who consistently break the law or those who break major laws.

So now your argument is that Jocabia is somehow the equivalent of CH's parent or takes a parental position over him? So it's okay for Jocabia to reprimand/attack CH's opinion with the lie accusation because what? Jocabia's fatherly love instinct?

Absurd. And it clearly shows how weak your positions are. You (you being your side) have crawled OUT of the dictionary for definitions of lie and liar, you have excused yourselves from forum behavior examples, and OUT of adult debate methodology altogether, in order to try and explain how Jocabia can try and justify habitually libeling the posts of other adults and public forum poster's post with the accusation of lie in this forum. Interesting that you get so desperate to approve the bad behavior. Honestly mind boggling.

You are creating an army of strawmen. I have not crawled out of anything.

You have failed to illustrate a logical progression from 'lie' to 'liar'. Etymological origins do not prove cause. I have no idea what you are talking about with your claims of crawling out of 'forum behaviour' or 'adult debate methodology'... I have not endorsed breaching Terms of Service, and I have asked for evidence where such could be presented. What is it you need?

It isn't a matter of approving or disapproving of behaviour. Jocabia said a certain piece of 'evidence' was a lie. YOU have stretched that to attempt to make out that Jocabia said another POSTER was 'a liar'. You have stretched it further to suggest that Jocabia was trying to invalidate another poster through use of an ad hominem fallacy.

If anything is mind boggling, it is the fact that you continue to hammer out the same thing over and again, expanding on it and re-imagining it in order to look like you are presenting something new, or that might have been a valid argument at some point.


I gave you a graceful 'out'. You could have taken the 'interpretation' bait... but, you continue to push your agenda (whatever it might be), in the face of consistent demonstration that your position is not only flawed, it is false.

fathers should teach thier sons about honour, respect, and how to talk to women properly.

Please explain how females intrinsically lack honor or respectfulness. Because, see, if there exist any honorable, respectful females, then common sense would indicate that those honorable, respectful females would be good role models for how to be honorable and respectful, wouldn't it?

Please explain how females intrinsically lack honor or respectfulness. Because, see, if there exist any honorable, respectful females, then common sense would indicate that those honorable, respectful females would be good role models for how to be honorable and respectful, wouldn't it?

boys should learn how to act like proper men via observing men acting like proper men.
girls should learn how to act like proper ladies via observing women acting like proper ladies.

boys should learn how to act like proper men via observing men acting like proper men.
girls should learn how to act like proper ladies via observing women acting like proper ladies.

Girls and boys should be together...oh oh..
Girls and boys will rule the world...
Boys and boys should be together...
Girls and girls will rule the world!

"Proper" is so open to interpretation that I must really say to you: fuck off. How about human beings, regardless of their cocks or vaginas or lack thereof, act humanely and teach their offspring to do the same?

boys should learn how to act like proper men via observing men acting like proper men.
girls should learn how to act like proper ladies via observing women acting like proper ladies.

If you honestly believe each gender has nothing to offer the offspring of the other nature... I'm not sure you have anything I should consider worth even debating.

boys should learn how to act like proper men via observing men acting like proper men.
girls should learn how to act like proper ladies via observing women acting like proper ladies.

Define "proper men."

Define "proper ladies."

What behaviors differentiate one from the other? Or is the only difference genitalia?

Define "proper men."

Define "proper ladies."

What behaviors differentiate one from the other? Or is the only difference genitalia?

The answer, regardless, shall provide fodder for at least another 50 pages.

If you honestly believe each gender has nothing to offer the offspring of the other nature... I'm not sure you have anything I should consider worth even debating.

didnt say nothing.
this is an example of saying i did something that i did not. i do believe i've posted about this before.

didnt say nothing.
this is an example of saying i did something that i did not. i do believe i've posted about this before.

Surely you can sum it up once more, if you have the concept fully fleshed out in your mind. I for one, am not going to track down your past posts to 'figure your position out'.

Oh, well then I WAS wrong about you.

You are not lying when you say that.

But you are a sexist who conveniently ignores the facts of history in order to promote his pet attitudes, just as you, very honestly, presented yourself to be.

Thanks for setting me straight.
Now I am a sexist? Come on, give me a break. I have always championed the goals of equality. I was married to a feminist for most of my adult life and that was a long time. As an unpaid union representative. I have negotiated many collective agreements. One of my finest moments was being primarily responsible for organizing the office staff (95% women). and bargaining for their first collective agreement. Until then, they had no real voice in the day to day affairs and were abused by an aggressive management staff.

Also as a unpaid union representative, I was involved in organizing a pro-active health and safety committee, and an effective union-management committee. I was involved in the drafting of a much needed Sexual Harassment/Harassment Policy. I had to fight grievances all the way to arbitration.

I have helped organize social committees, and taken part as an active committee member.

For 5 years, I served in the community as a member of a service club helping the less fortunate in the community.

For the past 6 years, I have been a member of an organization that stresses the equality of the members.

For the past 4 years, on Christmas day, I have gone downtown to help serve Christmas dinner for the homeless and the needy.

I have always supported the political party that I felt best represented human rights.

I have always believed in equality and I have worked for that goal most of my life.

Yeah, I guess you can say I have a "pet attitude" and that is about doing what is right and just. And what is your "pet attitude" for the day? Dumping on me? That is okay, for I have broad shoulders and I will carry on promoting equality and challenging those that would destroy any gains.

I have no hard feelings but I am disappointed.

Surely you can sum it up once more, if you have the concept fully fleshed out in your mind. I for one, am not going to track down your past posts to 'figure your position out'.

some people on this forum, instead of argueing, try to make you look bad by claiming that you said something you didnt. then argue that you did say it, in order to make your opinion look obsolete.

some people on this forum, instead of argueing, try to make you look bad by claiming that you said something you didnt. then argue that you did say it, in order to make your opinion look obsolete.

Some people on this forum, instead of making blanket statements and then running away from them with the excuse that "I've explained it all before", actually go on to flesh out what it is they mean. Try it. You might like it.

It's difficult to debate someone when they alternately claim you DON'T know what you actually meant and then claim that they DO know what you actually meant. Just come out with it, and the discussion can continue.

boys should learn how to act like proper men via observing men acting like proper men.
girls should learn how to act like proper ladies via observing women acting like proper ladies.

This is no way answers my question.

You asserted that boys should learn to be honorable and respectful, yes? All I want to know is what part of being honorable and respectful requires a penis.

didnt say nothing.
this is an example of saying i did something that i did not. i do believe i've posted about this before.

Once again, you writhe and fumble, and attempt to avoid dealing with the questions of the topic.

I didn't say you did 'say nothing'.

I said, "If you honestly believe each gender has nothing to offer..." etc. I didn't say you had SAID that, I only said what I would think if you DO believe that.

You create a ridiculous scenario, and completely fail to back it up. I have a daughter... and I have taught her a lot about concepts like respect and 'honour'.. You seem to think this makes her less than a 'proper' girl - but you don't give any reason WHY she should be 'less than' a 'proper' girl... or evenwhat the hell a 'proper' girl should be.

If a 'proper' girl is one that ONLY learns things from her mother, and a 'proper' boy is one that ONLY learns things from his father - then I hope to high heaven I am NEVER the parent of a 'proper' child.

Interesting. Do you think yourself to be any less stubborn then you think I am? Silly, it takes two to tango.
Is it your job to put words in other people's mouths? Do you get paid by the day or by the word? Kindly quote anywhere that I said that I am not stubborn. EDIT: I mean, of course, that I never made any such claim, and I am fairly certain I have never behaved in a way to make anyone think I don't know I'm stubborn.

But just because I'm stubborn, it doesn't mean that you are not stubborn or that I am not able to point out your stubbornness. Quite the opposite, in fact. I may be considered an expert on stubbornness, and I do declare that you, sir, are as stubborn as a mule.

Oh, and in addition, your arguments are all either founded on errors or on nothing at all. Quite something to be stubborn about.

boys should learn how to act like proper men via observing men acting like proper men.
girls should learn how to act like proper ladies via observing women acting like proper ladies.
Hm, men get to act like "men," but women have to act like "ladies"? I wonder why women can't act like "women."

But that aside, what does that have to do with teaching or parenting? Such examples can be found in many places, including vicariously through famous people. One does not have to be exposed through direct social contact.

For instance, how else would you account for boys who grow up to be decent human beings even though they were raised by men who abused women and children or who were addicts or otherwise were bad role models? Obviously, they modeled their behavior on someone other than their fathers, very possibly someone they did not know and had no personal contact with at all, like a sports star or an actor or a fictional character.

EDIT: They may even have modeled themselves on their mothers.

Now I am a sexist? Come on, give me a break. I have always championed the goals of equality.
Except, according to your own argument here, when it is inconvenient to you.
<snip>
Nice resume. Now, let's backtrack a little, shall we? Are you SURE you're not promoting a view you do not really hold when you say that sexism is not as serious a problem as racism. I remind you of (a) the historical record and (b) your own bright and shiny personal record.

Jocabia

Was this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11884204&postcount=1235) aimed at me? Or was it aimed at CH and you put my name in instead?

If it was aimed at me then can you please address this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11885277&postcount=1274) as you have me plenty confused.

I'm not sure how it got your name on it. I attempt to quote his post and snip it, but I apologize for the confusion.

Oh my goodness, sometimes you make it so easy to refute you it’s silly. Lets see here, what did you say?

First you say this:


But then you justify calling someone a liar by saying everyone lies so it doesn’t mean anything



So then you are calling him a liar then right? Why yes, yes you are..

Then you go on to make it even more clear that you are calling him a liar… But first you again say that you aren’t calling him a liar…



Here you have left NO doubt that you are NOT calling him a liar, in your own words.

But then you go on to say this…



That means he was lying, and when a person is lying he is a liar…

Marriam-Webster
Main Entry: lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly•ing /'lI-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavic lugati
intransitive verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
transitive verb : to bring about by telling lies <lied his way out of trouble>


Main Entry: li•ar
Pronunciation: 'lI(-&)r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogere, from lEogan to lie -- more at LIE
: a person who tells lies

See, quite simple really, you called him a liar.


Then what else did you say? Lets see…



Same old same old, you are still calling him a liar. You say he knows the truth and then tells a different story to deceive (reference the definitions above again if you like).



You see, now YOU are saying a mistruth. And since you said you don’t tell lies here…



And here is another example of you telling an untruth…



You don’t ‘point’ at a post’s topic when you call it a LIE. In this case you made an unsubstantiated accusation about the post by choosing to call it a LIE, and therefore, you called the poster a liar. And since you repeatedly claim to NOT do that, as shown above, and since you claim to have a dictionary understanding of what the word means and we have seen the meaning of the words from the Marriam-Webster in this post, well, I guess you are the one ‘caught’ now. It seems, YOU are the one that has told a lie, and several of them as shown above…

Hilarious. First of all, you've decided to make entire posts about me. Not about my argument, but about me. Amusing to say the least since you started this by accusing me of ad hominems. Meanwhile, I didn't call him a liar anymore than I call a person a pilot because I note that I saw him flying a plane. You might or might not deduce that one is a pilot because they were flying, but mentioning that I saw a person flying says NOTHING about them as a person. Anything you get about them as a person is a deduction.

However, since you claim I am lying, you can obviously quote me saying that CanuckHeaven is a liar. I'll wait.

Exactly right again. Jocabia says it is a lie, he says that the poster knows it was an untruth when they said it, and then Jocabia does NOT prove that the poster knew it was a lie so in is an unsupported accusation. Ad hominem.

An unsupported accusation is not an ad hominem. All ad hominems are about the person making the argument, but not all comments about a person are an ad hominem. First, my claim was supported. Your failure to read that support doesn't make it not exist. Second, my claim was about his argument, the fact that you extrapolated about him is your problem and it is an extrapolation I actively disagreed with. As GnI said, all liars lie, but not all who lie are liars.

Seriously, dictionaries are available online. Ad hominem is in most of them and further explanation is all over websidets. Whether or not it was intentional, I proved the statement was false. The lie accusation was the result of the statement being false, not the other way around. You have to ignore the facts, in order to suggest otherwise.

The word Lie does exactly that. It is an assertion that the post/quote is an untruth intentially told and is therefore invalidated.[/QUOTE]

No, it doesn't. It's an assertion that the post is false and therefore invalidated. And I proved it was false, repeatedly. I called it a lie because he continued to use the argument even after I'd showed that she said the opposite of what he was claiming, so ignorance is not a valid excuse. However, reaching the conclusion of false came LONG before the conclusion it was a lie. You're claims that it happened the other way around is one you've not supported whatsoever. There are 94 pages in this thread. You might be surprised but there are more posts on those pages than the ones you quoted.

Since you'd rather progress with this nonsense, it's time to show you how absurd you're being.

The original quote we were discussing -
I find it adorable that so many people assume all women (or all feminists) want to get married so badly that they would put up with an insecure little boy who is scared of the nasty girls who talk back at him.

If you actually are interested in hearing from a feminist (which I kinda doubt), then here you go:

A feminist is a person who believes in the social and political equality of the sexes. In my opinion, non-feminists are inherently sub-par individuals who aren't worth dating in the first place. Just like racists, anti-Semites, and other lowlifes, anti-feminists are fun to bait when you want entertainment, but they're usually dull after a while and are almost always lousy in bed.

Hence, I don't have to ever worry about ending up with some dude/dudette who bitches about me being a feminist, because I wouldn't be dating them unless they were a feminist as well. I also don't have to worry about snivveling weaklings who can't handle a strong-willed partner, because I don't date that kind of coward.

I've been in a serious relationship with a man for about 5 years now. I've had other lovers in the past, both male and female, and not a single one has ever been an anti-feminist or been turned off by my feminist beliefs. Indeed, I've found that most non-idiots are feminists these days, though they don't always self-identify as such, so you really have to scrape the bottom of the barrel if you want to try to date an anti-feminist.

This is the quote of Bottle's that was the subject of discussion.

Canuck attacked the post after misreading it to be about people who don't call themselves feminists. He openly stated as much. However, I proved to him that she wasn't and he continued to say that she was talking about how people identify themselves. Once I've shown him what he is saying is false, if he continues to state it, it's a lie. If my only reply was that it was a lie, you'd have a point. It wasn't and you don't.

Here is one of the many posts where I very clearly show that things he said were false. I show what she actually said.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11880805&postcount=1136

I didn't just call them lies. I showed they were false AND called them a lie. I didn't say he was liar until he continued to say her posts said the opposite of what they actually said. The fact that they were opposite is the proof they are false. The fact that he did after he knew better is the proof it was intentional.

I posted this FACT no less than half a dozen times. I showed it was false and then called it a lie. Because you didn't read something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Your attacks on me aren't just sad, they're false. I did call him a dishonest person once, however as I never used that to invalidate his posts, this is not an ad hominem.

Incidentally, his response to my post showing that his claims were false was to attack me and only me without ever addressing my arguments in an effort to invalidate them. That is ad hominem.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11880823&postcount=1137

I'll make a deal with you. You stop posting and I'll stop proving you wrong. Or, well, you could just stop being wrong. Well, I guess you could just keep setting yourself up to be proven wrong. It's really up to you.

I can do better than simply claim proof, I already showed it. Jocabia does not believe his own accusations and doesn't want to call the poster a liar, and thus, refuting his own ability to believe in the 'lie' accusation he made himself.

I showed it here... http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11885906&postcount=1296

EDIT: side note. Do you really want us to get into counting how many times and how many people Jocabia calls a liar by saying they lied? Essentially I think we will end up discussing why he seems to believe everyone he argues with on this forum is a liar... It seems to be a regular or maybe even a favorite tactic of his to post that someone else's post is a lie.

Hilarious. I'm more interested in why this matters to you. I invalidated his claims FIRST. It is not an ad hominem. It never was.. It never will be.

Meanwhile, I find it amusing that your entire effort lately seems to be to attack me in order to invalidate MY posts. See why does it matter even if I did call him a liar (I didn't)? Why don't you just concentrate on the arguments you're losing? Is it because you've lost those arguments so all you can do is attack me. It is your modus operandi. And I'll admit that I OFTEN say things about the poster and the methods they use in debate (repeated falsehoods, bad sources, racists arguments, sexist arguments, etc.) I believe that the source of an argument is a part of the argument when it's an opinion. However, I debate the points and the source of the points. I've never claimed that the source is A and thus the argument is automatically invalid. And absent the last part, there is no ad hominem despite your misuse of the term.

We know that no amount of evidence has ever made any difference with you. It's been shown to you what an ad hominem is. You've not changed your claims. It's been shown to you that saying someone lied does not make them a liar. You've not changed your claims.

Then you quote me saying I've not called him a liar and claim it says I don't believe he's a liar. I haven't said what I believe. I said I did not call him a liar. I didn't. That's a fact and not what I believe about him, which is largely irrelevant. I do believe he lied is which is why I said it.

However, since you feel the need to know what I believe - The truth is I believe he is dishonest, maybe not habitually, but enough that he will continue trumpeting an argument long after he knows it's been proven false, much like you're doing now.

Since he tries to differentiates between a lie and calling the person who said the quote a liar, he must not believe the lie was in fact a real lie. He can't have it both ways. You can't say, what you just said is a lie, and you did it on purpose, but, I am not calling you a liar. The fact that he pretends that as his defense proves that he didn't believe his own accusation in the first place, thus, it was an attack not a real attempt to expose an intentional lie. Ad hominem.

Certainly, you can and I did, as did GnI, Dem, Mur, and just about everyone else. You can extrapolate all you like. Call him a liar if you like. I believe he lied. I caught him repeating something he later admitted was false. I caught him repeatedly saying things appeared in a post that didn't and then misquoting that post purposefully. I definitely proved his claims false. I believe they were ALSO lies. That says nothing about him being a liar, despite your claims.

Not everyone who has ever lied is a liar or we are all liars and the term is meaningless.

I'll tell you what. Simple question. Have you ever in your life lied?

In response to the title of this thread, I once went out with a modern feminist. Never want to do it again.

Ever since then, I've stopped apologizing for my gender.


ATTN: modern feminists: Men are not defective women.

In response to the title of this thread, I once went out with a modern feminist. Never want to do it again.

Ever since then, I've stopped apologizing for my gender.


ATTN: modern feminists: Men are not defective women.

I'm a modern feminist. Anyone who claimed such a thing was not a feminist. Feminists believe in the equality of the sexes not the superiority of women. It's inherent in the definition, just check the dictionary.

In response to the title of this thread, I once went out with a modern feminist. Never want to do it again.

Ever since then, I've stopped apologizing for my gender.


ATTN: modern feminists: Men are not defective women.You seem to be a little confused. There is a difference between a man-hater and a feminist. And we frequently have to remind some folk that we aren't defective men. Why is it always an insult for a man to be compared to a woman, and a complement when women are compared to a man?

"You throw like a girl."
"You think like a man."

I know thats not what feminist don't openly believe. Its just that I am sick of being told that I am supposed to feel bad because some people who have a pair of yarbles did bad things.

For my university, I had to attend a class on sexual assault. I was one of four men and all the rest of the people were women's studies majors. Since I was the only guy who didn't sleep through it, I fel like I was on trial for all the crimes of men. I would have walked out, but then I wouldn't have been able to register for classes.

I've had to sit through enough tripe for one life, and I am sick of being told how everything about our society is trying to keep women down, and how being a white male heterosexual with a Christian background is the worst thing in the world.

Frankly, it seems as if all of these movements that claim they want equality really just want to put the WMH population through what they've been through.


There was a snafu regarding a "Tacos and Tequila" party at a fraternity at my college. Some people showed up as migrant workers. I do not condone this. But the organizors are having their stuff stolen, cars keyed, etc. and when someone wrote a letter to complain. It was published in our school newspaper, and someone wrote back saying that people of color have had to endure the same thing for their entire lives, and that they (The frat members) had no right to complain. Perhaps I am blind, but I do not see how this is constructive.

I would suggest that we try to come together as a people and look toward what unites us, but apparently this is politically incorrect too (I was called a totalitarian something or othere when I suggested this at my High School's government club).

You seem to be a little confused. There is a difference between a man-hater and a feminist. And we frequently have to remind some folk that we aren't defective men. Why is it always an insult for a man to be compared to a woman, and a complement when women are compared to a man?

"You throw like a girl."
"You think like a man."

It seems like the difference between man-hater and feminist is blurred at times...

Regarding the last section, I would assume the throwing has to do with the anatomical tendency for men to be stronger than woman.

As for the second quote, the only time I ever heard that was when we applied it to an idea a lady friend of mine had. Its a long story, but it involved alcohol, sex, driving really fast and probably a long stay in prison.

Come to think of it, don't stereotypical men think with their dicks? That implies stupidity, so I don't understand how "Thinking like a man" could be a complement in any way. Or should we create more female characters who are drunken at let their clits guide them through life?

Please define modern feminist. Man-hater, or a person that doesn't appreciate the fact that women make 75% of a man's wages (turned around, that a man makes 133% of a woman's wages) for the same line of work.

I would not date any woman that intends to have the males give birth for the next 3,000 years. They can all die from lack of ability to procreate (since they're obviously pissed about having to give birth). But a person that believes in equality? Sure, in fact, I've dated a few. And one currently. Pay based on three things in my book: requirements of job, ability to meet and surpass expectations, and duration of continuous employment. Those factors are all that is needed.

Note, I still hold an unfavorable viewpoint upon those that hate organisms with a Y chromosome simply because they have a Y chromosome.

I know thats not what feminist don't openly believe. Its just that I am sick of being told that I am supposed to feel bad because some people who have a pair of yarbles did bad things.

For my university, I had to attend a class on sexual assault. I was one of four men and all the rest of the people were women's studies majors. Since I was the only guy who didn't sleep through it, I fel like I was on trial for all the crimes of men. I would have walked out, but then I wouldn't have been able to register for classes.

I've had to sit through enough tripe for one life, and I am sick of being told how everything about our society is trying to keep women down, and how being a white male heterosexual with a Christian background is the worst thing in the world.

Frankly, it seems as if all of these movements that claim they want equality really just want to put the WMH population through what they've been through.


There was a snafu regarding a "Tacos and Tequila" party at a fraternity at my college. Some people showed up as migrant workers. I do not condone this. But the organizors are having their stuff stolen, cars keyed, etc. and when someone wrote a letter to complain. It was published in our school newspaper, and someone wrote back saying that people of color have had to endure the same thing for their entire lives, and that they (The frat members) had no right to complain. Perhaps I am blind, but I do not see how this is constructive.

I would suggest that we try to come together as a people and look toward what unites us, but apparently this is politically incorrect too (I was called a totalitarian something or othere when I suggested this at my High School's government club).
I know it can be frustrating to be blamed for the actions of a whole group. You have to remind yourself that people who have been wronged can sometimes lash out at the nearest target, right or not. Don't take it personally. Just tell yourself "they are generalizing, and I'm not the one who's the problem."

I know thats not what feminist don't openly believe. Its just that I am sick of being told that I am supposed to feel bad because some people who have a pair of yarbles did bad things.

For my university, I had to attend a class on sexual assault. I was one of four men and all the rest of the people were women's studies majors. Since I was the only guy who didn't sleep through it, I fel like I was on trial for all the crimes of men. I would have walked out, but then I wouldn't have been able to register for classes.

I've had to sit through enough tripe for one life, and I am sick of being told how everything about our society is trying to keep women down, and how being a white male heterosexual with a Christian background is the worst thing in the world.

Frankly, it seems as if all of these movements that claim they want equality really just want to put the WMH population through what they've been through.


There was a snafu regarding a "Tacos and Tequila" party at a fraternity at my college. Some people showed up as migrant workers. I do not condone this. But the organizors are having their stuff stolen, cars keyed, etc. and when someone wrote a letter to complain. It was published in our school newspaper, and someone wrote back saying that people of color have had to endure the same thing for their entire lives, and that they (The frat members) had no right to complain. Perhaps I am blind, but I do not see how this is constructive.

I would suggest that we try to come together as a people and look toward what unites us, but apparently this is politically incorrect too (I was called a totalitarian something or othere when I suggested this at my High School's government club).

Amen to that brother. It's gotten to the point that even scholarships are to find for people like us, simply because we're CWMH's. And I'm talking about my college Apps process, when I swear that even non-AA scholarships were becoming affirmative action.

I'm not saying that we should simply forgive all the past blunders of white men throughout history. But we do need to forgive the so called "dominant" at their births. Let their actions and character be they're evaluations. That's what the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was.

Please define modern feminist. Man-hater, or a person that doesn't appreciate the fact that women make 75% of a man's wages (turned around, that a man makes 133% of a woman's wages) for the same line of work.

I would not date any woman that intends to have the males give birth for the next 3,000 years. They can all die from lack of ability to procreate (since they're obviously pissed about having to give birth). But a person that believes in equality? Sure, in fact, I've dated a few. And one currently. Pay based on three things in my book: requirements of job, ability to meet and surpass expectations, and duration of continuous employment. Those factors are all that is needed.

Note, I still hold an unfavorable viewpoint upon those that hate organisms with a Y chromosome simply because they have a Y chromosome.

LOL
I told my husband if he wanted kids, he could have them. He declined.
But other than the fact that I don't want children, I have little in common with the man-haters. It does frustrate me that it's considered so unfeminine to be childless by choice. Oh well.
I have experienced being paid less than a less experienced male in the same job. But I'm certainly not a man-hater. I've been accused of liking them too much.;)

I know it can be frustrating to be blamed for the actions of a whole group. You have to remind yourself that people who have been wronged can sometimes lash out at the nearest target, right or not. Don't take it personally. Just tell yourself "they are generalizing, and I'm not the one who's the problem."

Edit: I had some stuff written here, but it wasn't nice. Basically, I feel like if I am ever wronged by a reactionary group, I am supposed to take it and shut up about it.

This is an extreme example, but should we tell the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay the same thing you told me?

Edit: I had some stuff written here, but it wasn't nice. Basically, I feel like if I am ever wronged by a reactionary group, I am supposed to take it and shut up about it.

This is an extreme example, but should we tell the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay the same thing you told me?
Of course not. But it doesn't do you any good to take it personally. It hurts only you. People generalize. Don't let it make you feel badly about youself. And don't blame all feminists/ blacks/gays/ whatever for your bad treatment at some peoples hands. Then you're doing the same thing they are.

A Let their actions and character be they're evaluations. That's what the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was.

Thank you.

MLK would probably weep if he saw the state of the world today.

Of course not. But it doesn't do you any good to take it personally. It hurts only you. People generalize. Don't let it make you feel badly about youself. And don't blame all feminists/ blacks/gays/ whatever for your bad treatment at some peoples hands. Then you're doing the same thing they are.

I don't blame the people. I blame their movements. Their movements create problems for me. I have trouble not taking problems that people create for me personally.

I feel that many of these movements create problems for people who have not actively perpetrated racism/sexism, and I am sick of playing silent martyr.

I don't blame the people. I blame their movements. Their movements create problems for me. I have trouble not taking problems that people create for me personally.

I feel that many of these movements create problems for people who have not actively perpetrated racism/sexism, and I am sick of playing silent martyr.

You're doing the exact thing you're complaining about. You were wrong by a select few. The feminist movement is about equality. It does not claim anything like what you've said it claims. You are blaming the movement for the actions of individuals which is exactly like blaming all men because of the actions of some men.

You blamed modern feminists. That is people. Feminism is a movement full of PEOPLE. Some of those people will claim the title but not the beliefs. Unfortunately, these people are confused and think that such behavior is appropriate and justified. However, they are wrong. Don't be wrong as well. Treat individuals like individuals. Recognize that feminism is about equality. It is not about the behavior of the few radicals who don't believe in equality.

You're doing the exact thing you're complaining about. You were wrong by a select few. The feminist movement is about equality. It does not claim anything like what you've said it claims. You are blaming the movement for the actions of individuals which is exactly like blaming all men because of the actions of some men.

None of what happened to the people in the fraternity happened to me.


My biggest complaint about all of these movements is the environment they create. I can deal with individual actions. It just seems like these movements seek to create an environment where reciprocal racism/sexism is acceptable.

I had a bad experience involving something like this in middle school. I would rather not talk about it, but it short it was around the time of columbine, I was an outsider, so instead of having to worry about being bullied by my peers, I also had to worry because everything I did was being watched by the school shrink.

I cannot coherently explain my exact stance on all of these matters. Apparently I am being a little hipocritical, for which I apologize, but I am tired (on an existential scale) of this snakeshit. It seems that there is no movement for the people who just want to exist.

Feminism is a movement full of PEOPLE. Some of those people will claim the title but not the beliefs. Unfortunately, these people are confused and think that such behavior is appropriate and justified. However, they are wrong. Don't be wrong as well. Treat individuals like individuals. Recognize that feminism is about equality. It is not about the behavior of the few radicals who don't believe in equality.

Read the above apology. But for the record I have run into more man-haters who have led me to believe that feminism is about man-hating. Every time I meet someone who identifies themselves as a feminist, I hear quotes from the SCUM manifesto. Stimulus-response.

None of what happened to the people in the fraternity happened to me.

None of what happened to that fraternity was the actions of the feminist movement. What's your point? That was the action of individuals.


My biggest complaint about all of these movements is the environment they create. I can deal with individual actions. It just seems like these movements seek to create an environment where reciprocal racism/sexism is acceptable.

No, they don't. Again, you're generalizing. You're blaming the movement for the action of individuals and it's no different than say the Black culture creates an 'environment' for crime or stupidity or any other such nonsensical notion.

Women don't deserve to be treated as superior. They deserve to be treated as equals.


I had a bad experience involving something like this in middle school. I would rather not talk about it, but it short it was around the time of columbine, I was an outsider, so instead of having to worry about being bullied by my peers, I also had to worry because everything I did was being watched by the school shrink.

Again, that is one experience. It says nothing about anyone that wasn't directly involved in that experience.

I cannot coherently explain my exact stance on all of these matters. Apparently I am being a little hipocritical, for which I apologize, but I am tired (on an existential scale) of this snakeshit. It seems that there is no movement for the people who just want to exist.

Just exist and not care. Despite what some would have you believe the feminist movement isn't out to steal your rights. If you don't care, ignore the movement.

Read the above apology. But for the record I have run into more man-haters who have led me to believe that feminism is about man-hating. Every time I meet someone who identifies themselves as a feminist, I hear quotes from the SCUM manifesto. Stimulus-response.

That's the same excuse racists and other bigots use. Blame individuals for the actions of individuals. None of us are endorsing the behavior of people who don't believe in equality. If they are man-hating they do not believe in equality. We are feminists. When you generalize you are guilty of what you complain about. An apology doesn't help when you continue to do it.

LOL
I told my husband if he wanted kids, he could have them. He declined.
But other than the fact that I don't want children, I have little in common with the man-haters. It does frustrate me that it's considered so unfeminine to be childless by choice. Oh well.
I have experienced being paid less than a less experienced male in the same job. But I'm certainly not a man-hater. I've been accused of liking them too much.;)

That is a bit of a shame about not wanting kids being seen as not being feminine. It doesn't make any more sense than it not being masculine to not want kids. And really, it makes more sense to me for a woman to not want kids. Because pregnancy and childbirth just SO fun (sarcasm in that last bit).

I've never gotten the "woman wants to be paid the same and treated the same = she must hate men" thing. Seems odd to me for anyone NOT to want their rights to be respected.

That is a bit of a shame about not wanting kids being seen as not being feminine. It doesn't make any more sense than it not being masculine to not want kids. And really, it makes more sense to me for a woman to not want kids. Because pregnancy and childbirth just SO fun (sarcasm in that last bit).

No joke. I don't see why people are so shocked that women would prefer to have few children or none, considering that the physical strain of childbearing is exclusively born by women, and that the majority of the yucky work of childrearing is typically considered the woman's job, and that women are told they must choose between having their own hopes and dreams and having a family.

It honestly feels like the world makes motherhood as unattractive a prospect as possible, and then everybody acts surprised when women find motherhood an unattractive prospect.


I've never gotten the "woman wants to be paid the same and treated the same = she must hate men" thing. Seems odd to me for anyone NOT to want their rights to be respected.
It surprises me how many modern men still seem to think this sort of thing. A woman who expects to be treated like an equal is a castrating bitch, I guess because any man who is forced to treat women with respect is having his manhood taken away? Odd.

ATTN: modern feminists: Men are not defective women.

That is nothing to do with femininsm, and I've never heard someone claim it as a feminist ideal.

On the other hand - in PURELY scientific terms, the Y chromosome IS a defective X chromosome...

No joke. I don't see why people are so shocked that women would prefer to have few children or none, considering that the physical strain of childbearing is exclusively born by women, and that the majority of the yucky work of childrearing is typically considered the woman's job, and that women are told they must choose between having their own hopes and dreams and having a family.

It honestly feels like the world makes motherhood as unattractive a prospect as possible, and then everybody acts surprised when women find motherhood an unattractive prospect.


It surprises me how many modern men still seem to think this sort of thing. A woman who expects to be treated like an equal is a castrating bitch, I guess because any man who is forced to treat women with respect is having his manhood taken away? Odd.

I think some men are getting pissed at feminism because now they are being asked to make that same choice too. Except for the independently wealthy, this is something many young people must face, regardless of sex and gender.

I think some men are getting pissed at feminism because now they are being asked to make that same choice too.

Then those are very stupid or ill-informed men, because feminism has been fighting to make sure that NOBODY has to make that choice. That's like blaming Civil Rights advocates for the fact that black people are facing civil rights violations.


Except for the independently wealthy, this is something many young people must face, regardless of sex and gender.
Well, that's actually one of the big points feminists make routinely. All the bullshit about "working women" and "opting out" and "mommy-track" is only applicable to wealthy (usually white) women; lower class and even middle class women simply don't have the option to "opt out," even if they might want to, because there are bills to pay. When traditionalists paint the rosy picture of Papa going off to work while Mama stays home with the kiddies, they are talking about an illusion that isn't even available to a huge percentage of families.

...
Well, that's actually one of the big points feminists make routinely. All the bullshit about "working women" and "opting out" and "mommy-track" is only applicable to wealthy (usually white) women; lower class and even middle class women simply don't have the option to "opt out," even if they might want to, because there are bills to pay. When traditionalists paint the rosy picture of Papa going off to work while Mama stays home with the kiddies, they are talking about an illusion that isn't even available to a huge percentage of families.


I agree with my wallet, but my eyes have seen differently. My personal family is an example of what you just described (dual working parents with kids) I've seen more than a few of the other families in the circles I socialize in though.

I can not explain it (not doing it myself nor seriously considering doing it either, I have no reason to think about it too much), but I can not even imagine cutting down to a one salary family without also imagining self-induced poverty. But I know for a fact that there are more than a few middle aged two parent families that attend the church I go to that have chosen to reduce themselves to one salary families. And in addition to that, they pay an additional amount of money for their children's education above and beyond public education, AND they tithe... I have NO idea how they can do that in the lower-middle-income financial status, but they do. They do it for years and years too, having more than a couple of kids, the stay at homes are seemingly perpetually busy raising the next one as the older ones go off to school. I imagine that they voluntarily forfeit all of the extra’s the average American family take for granted, like trips to a fast food restaurant etc.

I agree with my wallet, but my eyes have seen differently. My personal family is an example of what you just described (dual working parents with kids) I've seen more than a few of the other families in the circles I socialize in though.

I can not explain it (not doing it myself nor seriously considering doing it either, I have no reason to think about it too much), but I can not even imagine cutting down to a one salary family without also imagining self-induced poverty. But I know for a fact that there are more than a few middle aged two parent families that attend the church I go to that have chosen to reduce themselves to one salary families. And in addition to that, they pay an additional amount of money for their children's education above and beyond public education, AND they tithe... I have NO idea how they can do that in the lower-middle-income financial status, but they do. They do it for years and years too, having more than a couple of kids, the stay at homes are seemingly perpetually busy raising the next one as the older ones go off to school. I imagine that they voluntarily forfeit all of the extra’s the average American family take for granted, like trips to a fast food restaurant etc.
If you're talking about families that can afford things like eating out at restaurants, you're already selecting out a whole lot of families.

Yes, there are families that are willing to go into debt in order to have a stay-at-home parent. There are families who consider it more important to have Mommy at home than to have any savings in the event of trouble. There are families that would give up saving for their kids' college because it's more important for them to have a stay-at-home Mom. There are families that consider it an "extra" to make sure their kids have books around the house. There are lots of sacrifices a family could make in order to have Mom stay home.

All that is up to them, as far as I'm concerned. There are plenty of families that decide such sacrifices are unacceptable. My own parents consider it unacceptable to have a baby before you've got at least $5000 saved up for its education. That's just the values I grew up with. :D

There are also families where they have to have somebody stay home to care for an aging parent or ill child, and they can't possibly afford to hire somebody to do it, so having one person stay at home is effectively cheaper than having them work and then hire paid help.

And, of course, there are places where a woman will make less money working than it would take to pay for her kids to go to daycare while she works.

So obviously it's a complicated situation.

What I was really getting at is how the "opting out" thing implies that it's just some personal choice women make for fun. The reality is that most women who have to choose between working in the home and working out of the home aren't just "opting" for what they like best. They have responsibilities that they are weighing, and it's not about them blithely saying, "Oh, I'd rather play with my babies than go off to the office!" That's why I find discussions of the "Opt-Out Revolution" so obnoxious, and that's one of the many reasons why feminists take issue with it.

If you're talking about families that can afford things like eating out at restaurants, you're already selecting out a whole lot of families.

Just for clarity, I meant to compare them to my family. MY family goes to restaurants on occassion, once or twice a month. I imagine that their families do not go at all, how could they, that's what I was trying to say.

No joke. I don't see why people are so shocked that women would prefer to have few children or none, considering that the physical strain of childbearing is exclusively born by women, and that the majority of the yucky work of childrearing is typically considered the woman's job, and that women are told they must choose between having their own hopes and dreams and having a family.

It honestly feels like the world makes motherhood as unattractive a prospect as possible, and then everybody acts surprised when women find motherhood an unattractive prospect.
This is a great insight. It's very true. Back in my great-grandparents' day, childrearing fit into people's lives very differently. Fussing around with babies was not a full-time, all-consuming job. Among the middle and lower classes, the babies got carried along as the nursing mother went about her regular business. When they got old enough to walk, they walked, and when they got old enough to do stuff, they were given stuff to do. Kids grew up a lot faster in those days, possibly because their parents were not interested in prolonging the time they would have to responsible for their upkeep (and do all that extra work). As for the upper classes, they barely raised their children at all. The only difference between the modern nanny-culture and the old days, was that in the old days, mothers didn't pretend to feel any anxiety about not bonding with their little angels.

Nowadays, childrearing consumes every waking moment, and most of the moments that should be spent sleeping, too. In the old days, there was no question that a working woman would keep working while she raised her children. She had to, and anyway, there was nothing about having a baby that meant she couldn't do what she normally did -- just put the thing in a pram or a basket, stick a teet in its mouth when it's hungry, and carry on. For the modern mother, absolutely everything must be planned around The Baby, and the The Baby takes precedence over absolutely all other concerns, to such an extent that we invent bullshit things to do that are all about the baby and eat up countless hours out of the day. I mean, really, "Mommy and Me"? Baby yoga classes? I ask you.

And in recent years, we see that this obsession is not allowed to end. Babyhood and the related constant fussing keeps getting extended and extended. Children grow but are not allowed to grow up. They remain the focus of a universe of fussing and primping that essentially takes their childhood away from them. Modern American childhood is not about children. It's about keeping women busy.

Busy, that is, with something other than themselves. No wonder motherhood is a daunting prospect. Once upon a time, it was just one aspect of being a woman and a person. Now, it's like joining a cult that expects total submission and total sacrifice and total abandonment of the rest of the world. It seems crazy to me. Why would anybody buy into such a thing?

It surprises me how many modern men still seem to think this sort of thing. A woman who expects to be treated like an equal is a castrating bitch, I guess because any man who is forced to treat women with respect is having his manhood taken away? Odd.
Well, we really do know what that's all about, don't we? It's the game of King of the Hill. It's all about social status/power. There are so many people in the world who think life is a competition. They don't believe that sharing is even possible, so if women get power, that must mean that men are losing power. And if men have power, that must mean that women don't have it, and thus, they must be seen to be less powerful and to have lower status. Otherwise, what meaning does being male have? Sexism is just one manifestation of this, to me, bizarre thinking.

{snipped stuff about the wonderful corporations} What are you, some kind of a commie hippie pinko liberal or something?
Close. Socialist.

We had corporations long before we had a lot of divorces. Divorces skyrocketed after 60s generation liberals like the feminists decided that their own personal fickle whims are more important than traditional patrirachical family values. People worked harder in America when there were lower divorce rates. Ever look into how hard working we were in the early 20th century and then there was a lot of stigma attached to divorce. Now everywhere you look you run into the divorced.
Try to link cause and effect. In the 1800s no nuclear devices were detonated. In the 1900s 2 nuclear devices were detonated. The only difference was that 1900s had a nine in it. Therefore nukes will be detonated in 2900s. See how ridiculous that is.
Basically people didn't divorce before, as women had no real option to. Wife gets beaten on a daily basis, what's she going to do. No-one would help her get out. She'd become destitute and homeless, and either bring her children in to that, or leave them with the ex-husband.

I was going to bail out of this thread, as this is the land logic forgot. There is a tendency to ignore any valid point and go for personal attacks, distortion, disinformation, and basically make any meaningful discourse impossible. But this post was so lacking in merit or logic, that I couldn't help msyelf.

I think some men are getting pissed at feminism because now they are being asked to make that same choice too. Except for the independently wealthy, this is something many young people must face, regardless of sex and gender.
Another great insight. Of course, the only possible response to it is to laugh bitterly and say to such men, "Welcome our world. Sucks, don't it?"

Just for clarity, I meant to compare them to my family. MY family goes to restaurants on occassion, once or twice a month. I imagine that their families do not go at all, how could they, that's what I was trying to say.

Ahhh, gotcha.

I agree with my wallet, but my eyes have seen differently. My personal family is an example of what you just described (dual working parents with kids) I've seen more than a few of the other families in the circles I socialize in though.

I can not explain it (not doing it myself nor seriously considering doing it either, I have no reason to think about it too much), but I can not even imagine cutting down to a one salary family without also imagining self-induced poverty. But I know for a fact that there are more than a few middle aged two parent families that attend the church I go to that have chosen to reduce themselves to one salary families. And in addition to that, they pay an additional amount of money for their children's education above and beyond public education, AND they tithe... I have NO idea how they can do that in the lower-middle-income financial status, but they do. They do it for years and years too, having more than a couple of kids, the stay at homes are seemingly perpetually busy raising the next one as the older ones go off to school. I imagine that they voluntarily forfeit all of the extra’s the average American family take for granted, like trips to a fast food restaurant etc.
Perhaps you are not aware that there is an alarming crisis of personal debt in the US. How do these middle class families do it? With their credit cards, just like millions of others. Those children who those women are so involved with -- their financial futures are being sacrificed so that, today, their parents can put together all the lifestyle trappings that US culture insists they have to have in order to have a proper life, every single one of which costs and costs and costs. Even those lovely college educations will turn out to be underfunded by the time little Johnnie and Jainie turn 18. The bright futures promised by their loving parents will come with a life-time load of debt to start them down the same dead-end track all over again.

Your imagination does not begin to understand what is going on in our country. Forego trips to restaurants or other social outings, or toys, or fashionable clothes, or sports and other classes and clubs and camping trips, etc? You must be crazy. All these things are essential parts of a "proper" American life. You can't forego any of them without being seen to be poorer than your neighbors, and poor = failure.

How is this possible? It boils down basically to this: The ideal American lifestyle -- with the breadwinner dad and the stay-at-home mom and the kids with their teams and their clubs and their best possible schools, and the house in the suburbs with the lawn and the cars -- is a fiction that does not match the practical demands of reality. It is just plain too expensive. The vast majority of families who try to fulfill it cannot avoid spending more than they earn.

Look past your idealistic imaginings, Poot, and you will see a reality of unhappy people and family relationships poisoned by stress and resentment. You will see lists of promises doomed to be broken, and you will see the ever present, constant threat of financial ruin looming over all, like something out of Dickens's "Bleak House."

What price your ideal family life? Too high a price, in my opinion.

Perhaps you are not aware that there is an alarming crisis of personal debt in the US. How do these middle class families do it? With their credit cards, just like millions of others. Those children who those women are so involved with -- their financial futures are being sacrificed so that, today, their parents can put together all the lifestyle trappings that US culture insists they have to have in order to have a proper life, every single one of which costs and costs and costs. Even those lovely college educations will turn out to be underfunded by the time little Johnnie and Jainie turn 18. The bright futures promised by their loving parents will come with a life-time load of debt to start them down the same dead-end track all over again.

Your imagination does not begin to understand what is going on in our country. Forego trips to restaurants or other social outings, or toys, or fashionable clothes, or sports and other classes and clubs and camping trips, etc? You must be crazy. All these things are essential parts of a "proper" American life. You can't forego any of them without being seen to be poorer than your neighbors, and poor = failure.

How is this possible? It boils down basically to this: The ideal American lifestyle -- with the breadwinner dad and the stay-at-home mom and the kids with their teams and their clubs and their best possible schools, and the house in the suburbs with the lawn and the cars -- is a fiction that does not match the practical demands of reality. It is just plain too expensive. The vast majority of families who try to fulfill it cannot avoid spending more than they earn.

Look past your idealistic imaginings, Poot, and you will see a reality of unhappy people and family relationships poisoned by stress and resentment. You will see lists of promises doomed to be broken, and you will see the ever present, constant threat of financial ruin looming over all, like something out of Dickens's "Bleak House."

What price your ideal family life? Too high a price, in my opinion.
Very well said.

I suppose it's partly about the word-usage. To me, saying "I can afford X" means that I actually have the money to pay for X. It does not mean, "I have enough credit to charge X on my Visa."

My aunt and uncle currently live in a home they cannot afford, driving cars they cannot afford, providing their kids with luxuries they cannot afford. They are living deeply in debt. They will probably file for bankrupcy at some point in the reasonably near future. The fact that they are able to go out to restaurants for dinner and charge the meal doesn't mean (IMO) that they can actually AFFORD what they are doing. They just can get away with it.

That's the way I was taught to view spending, and I realize that there are lots of people who don't see it that way. So that's my bad for not thinking twice about the words I was using.

<snip>
So obviously it's a complicated situation.

What I was really getting at is how the "opting out" thing implies that it's just some personal choice women make for fun. The reality is that most women who have to choose between working in the home and working out of the home aren't just "opting" for what they like best. They have responsibilities that they are weighing, and it's not about them blithely saying, "Oh, I'd rather play with my babies than go off to the office!" That's why I find discussions of the "Opt-Out Revolution" so obnoxious, and that's one of the many reasons why feminists take issue with it.
Yes, and that's another thing. Where do they get this idea that women "opt" to work rather than spend time with their families? I sometimes wonder if the people who say that kind of thing have ever had a job that paid less than $60,000/year. Do they have any idea how rare it is for any woman or any man to find a job that really is personally fulfilling, that makes them happy, that they love to go to every day? For the vast majority of people the world over, working for a living is a no-fun burden on their lives, and if they didn't have to do it to survive, they certainly wouldn't. I have held lots of jobs, and I have never met any co-worker who would not rather have been spending their time with their families, with the people they love, or even just lounging in a park with a book and a coffee, than slogging through the misery of boring, repetitive chores while dealing with company bullshit and demanding bosses.

Yes, and that's another thing. Where do they get this idea that women "opt" to work rather than spend time with their families? I sometimes wonder if the people who say that kind of thing have ever had a job that paid less than $60,000/year. Do they have any idea how rare it is for any woman or any man to find a job that really is personally fulfilling, that makes them happy, that they love to go to every day? For the vast majority of people the world over, working for a living is a no-fun burden on their lives, and if they didn't have to do it to survive, they certainly wouldn't. I have held lots of jobs, and I have never met any co-worker who would not rather have been spending their time with their families, with the people they love, or even just lounging in a park with a book and a coffee, than slogging through the misery of boring, repetitive chores while dealing with company bullshit and demanding bosses.
Isn't it funny how if women don't like their jobs, or would rather spend time with their kids than slog away at the office, this is somehow proof of "maternal instinct" or some uniquely-feminine urge for hearth and home? It never can simply be a case of, you know, cruddy jobs that NOBODY would like doing...

I'm lucky enough to have a job I like, but I've had plenty of jobs I didn't like. If I knew I would have to choose between working at one of them for the rest of my life or staying home with my family, I'd pick my family if it were remotely possible. I would MOST prefer to have a career that I enjoy and value, in addition to having a family, but that option is something a whole lot of people simply don't get a shot at. It's silly to try to view "opting out" through that lens.

...
Look past your idealistic imaginings, Poot, and you will see a reality of unhappy people and family relationships poisoned by stress and resentment. You will see lists of promises doomed to be broken, and you will see the ever present, constant threat of financial ruin looming over all, like something out of Dickens's "Bleak House."

What price your ideal family life? Too high a price, in my opinion.

And exactly WHAT imaginings did I do that you are talking about? You seem entirely misdirected I think. Didn't I already say that it was MY family that is the two income family and that I can't imagine becoming a single salary family without it being nothing more than self-induced poverty? What imaginations are you accusing me of having? I certainly painted no pictures of little pink houses with white picket fences. The exact opposite is what I said.

You do that to my posts a surprisingly lot, in my opinion. I find you accusing me of endorsing the things my opponents are doing (in this case I don't even have any opponents that I was aware of, me and Bottle were patting each other on the back when you came along and began ranting into your agenda (which is a fine agenda BTW) but you directed it at me like I was someone against it? WTH?)...

Very well said.

I suppose it's partly about the word-usage. To me, saying "I can afford X" means that I actually have the money to pay for X. It does not mean, "I have enough credit to charge X on my Visa."

My aunt and uncle currently live in a home they cannot afford, driving cars they cannot afford, providing their kids with luxuries they cannot afford. They are living deeply in debt. They will probably file for bankrupcy at some point in the reasonably near future. The fact that they are able to go out to restaurants for dinner and charge the meal doesn't mean (IMO) that they can actually AFFORD what they are doing. They just can get away with it.

That's the way I was taught to view spending, and I realize that there are lots of people who don't see it that way. So that's my bad for not thinking twice about the words I was using.
I, too, am a strictly cash-and-carry, pay-as-you-go player, but I learned that lesson by the negative examples of the rest of my family, friends, and community.

I grew up in the period when credit was first introduced. I actually predate VISA and Mastercard. When I was born, American Express was the only card, and it was not a credit card, but more like what we call a check card now. You were discouraged from racking up debt on AmEx because you were required to pay your entire balance every month, and there were stiff penalties if you didn't.

Credit entered the picture in a big way after the 1970s recession, when so many people had gotten hit so hard, that there was a nearly overwhelming urge to indulge when the good times started rolling again in the 1980s. The business of lending has always been about making a profit on the interest collected against the debt. Lending companies were able to make millions extending credit to people for what at first seemed like small personal debts. But then, when the banks were allowed to get into the credit business, the business boomed out of all proportion and now the business of debt management is so huge, so much a part of the US economy that the entire culture is being geared towards encouraging people to rack up debt and more debt.

Every time you hear an ad for anything at all that mentions "easy financing available," that is an invitation to go into debt to get what they are selling. In my grandparents day, it was ridiculous to think that a person would go into debt to buy something as trivial as a television. Not any more. Just last night, I saw an ad for VISA's check card that actually discourages the use of actual money by showing a person paying cash at a deli as disrupting the free flow of everybody's business and day and lifestyle. The number of ads that encourage consumers to use credit to buy things, ads that are offering credit, that encourage people to apply for loans against their houses so that they can spend money on non-essentials -- it's staggering. Especially for someone like me who saw it all happen, how we went from a cash culture to a credit culture. I know people younger than me who have never known a life without debt. I wonder if the younger people on this forum realize that "debt management" is a term that did not exist 40 years ago. Debt was something you worked to get rid of, not something you worked to manage, i.e. keep going.

Growing up, I got to see first-hand how the US consumerist credit culture ruined people's lives, and I also got to see how the livestyles of people who refused to use credit got more and more marginalized, as the basic cultural trappings got priced out of the cash-only range. The availability of credit artificially speeds up rising prices because, it is just as easy to borrow $1000 as it is to borrow $500. It was quite rapid, the way pay-as-you-go people found themselves cut off from the American mainstream. One personal experience to illustrate what I mean -- I once had to call Verizon to report a problem with my phone service, and the repair rep started asking all these diagnostic questions -- did I have a cordless phone, did I have a fax maching hooked up to my landline, did I have DSL, did I have a microwave oven in the same room, etc? I answered no to everything, until finally the rep laughed and said, "What do you have, a pencil?"

I'm not poor, fortunately. My lifestyle includes plenty of books, restaurants, fashionable clothing, movies, fine food and $10 cocktails, even occasional trips to Europe, but because I pay cash for everything, I can't buy everything. So anything that doesn't matter a lot to me, doesn't get bought. None of my home appliances cost more than $80. I don't own a car, or a microwave, or a high speed internet connection, or a cell phone, or a dozen other things my friends can't live without and never stop paying for. I am considered eccentric by just about everyone, but I'm not in debt.

So what does all this have to do with feminism? It has to do with all movements that are concerned with social equality because there is nothing that destroys social equality more thoroughly than poverty or even just the risk of poverty. When you're poor, it doesn't matter if you're male or female, black or white, Christian or whatever. The fear of being poor drives all other considerations out of people's minds. US credit culture has created an image of a "proper" lifestyle that is full of inequality -- idealistic fantasies of social roles for the genders, for adults and children, idealistic fantasies of wealth within our grasp, of personal indulgence and social privilege -- and it backs up these "ideals" with the very realistic threat of poverty and failure if you don't play the game just right (credit rating anxiety, anyone? (note how the measure of wealth is no longer how much cash/assets you've got but how much debt you can carry)). This locks us into a work and financial system that is already unequal but which we dare not try to change for fear of losing the lifestyle we are taught we're supposed to want.

In many ways I think the job of feminists, labor organizers, and other such social activists is even harder now than it was 50 years ago, because now it's not about making people realize harsh realities. It's about making people realize the difference between fantasy and reality and convincing them that harsh reality is better than their pleasant dreams.

Kind of like the Matrix movies, even though I hate those movies.

And exactly WHAT imaginings did I do that you are talking about? You seem entirely misdirected I think. Didn't I already say that it was MY family that is the two income family and that I can't imagine becoming a single salary family without it being nothing more than self-induced poverty? What imaginations are you accusing me of having? I certainly painted no pictures of little pink houses with white picket fences. The exact opposite is what I said.

You do that to my posts a surprisingly lot, in my opinion. I find you accusing me of endorsing the things my opponents are doing (in this case I don't even have any opponents that I was aware of, me and Bottle were patting each other on the back when you came along and began ranting into your agenda (which is a fine agenda BTW) but you directed it at me like I was someone against it? WTH?)...
Sigh. You are very tiring, Pootwaddle. I wish you would read your own posts once in a while.

From Pootwaddle Post 1427:
<snip> I have NO idea how they can do that in the lower-middle-income financial status, but they do. They do it for years and years too, having more than a couple of kids, the stay at homes are seemingly perpetually busy raising the next one as the older ones go off to school. I imagine that they voluntarily forfeit all of the extra’s the average American family take for granted, like trips to a fast food restaurant etc.

From Pootwaddle Post 1429:
Just for clarity, I meant to compare them to my family. MY family goes to restaurants on occassion, once or twice a month. I imagine that their families do not go at all, how could they, that's what I was trying to say.

As for the rosy fantasies I described in my posts, if you would bother to read other's posts along with your own, you would see that I never said YOU were promoting such fantasies. What I said was that these are the standards of modern American life which middle class people feel pressured to maintain, and that, regardless of what you imagine, the reality is far more likely that these other families are putting themselves into significant debt to keep up the standard lifestyles. You said (see above) that you have no idea how they do it. I was telling you how they do it. If you don't believe me, go check the websites of any credit counseling agency in the country.

...
As for the rosy fantasies I described in my posts, if you would bother to read other's posts along with your own, you would see that I never said YOU were promoting such fantasies. What I said was that these are the standards of modern American life which middle class people feel pressured to maintain, and that, regardless of what you imagine, the reality is far more likely that these other families are putting themselves into significant debt to keep up the standard lifestyles. You said (see above) that you have no idea how they do it. I was telling you how they do it. If you don't believe me, go check the websites of any credit counseling agency in the country.

Now you see, at least I understand how you got me confused with the imaginary PootWaddle you have in your head...

The operative word was the "self-induced poverty" I kept repeating. I know that they are poor, I tried to convey that they are poor. They do NOT go to the restaurants, they do not wear the fashionable clothes they do not have credit cards ( they cannot afford them). I said that I cannot imagine how they do that, whereas, I am the one guilty of being a materialistic two income family, and I can't imagine being poor like that. I was in essence describing families that you describe yourself like, pay as you go, no money you can't have it, families. Sorry you were confused. And additionally, I was talking about their poverty and ability to live that way admirably not negatively. But you misunderstood and thought I was talking about the Jones down the street trying to live with a house and two cards and all the American toys… the actuality is that I was talking about not knowing HOW the families I’m aware of can control themselves and limit their financial needs and can survive on a single salary in this day and age.

As to your condescending and tiresome sighing, do it all you like, it goes both ways I’m sure.

Now you see, at least I understand how you got me confused with the imaginary PootWaddle you have in your head...

The operative word was the "self-induced poverty" I kept repeating.
A meaningless phrase that entirely misses the point of what I was saying.

I know that they are poor, I tried to convey that they are poor. They do NOT go to the restaurants, they do not wear the fashionable clothes they do not have credit cards ( they cannot afford them). I said that I cannot imagine how they do that, whereas, I am the one guilty of being a materialistic two income family, and I can't imagine being poor like that. I was in essence describing families that you describe yourself like, pay as you go, no money you can't have it, families. Sorry you were confused. And additionally, I was talking about their poverty and ability to live that way admirably not negatively. But you misunderstood and thought I was talking about the Jones down the street trying to live with a house and two cards and all the American toys… the actuality is that I was talking about not knowing HOW the families I’m aware of can control themselves and limit their financial needs and can survive on a single salary in this day and age.
Again, you missed the point of what I was saying.

I suppose you failed to notice how you yourself are buying into the over-priced ideal of American life, yet undermining it at the same time. Over the course of this thread, you and some others have been arguing that this bread-winner dad/stay-at-home mom familiy lifestyle is the ideal, that it reflects some natural human impulses, and that therefore these are the most natural and most beneficial gender roles for men and women to conform to.

Yet here you are, admitting that we cannot do it and maintain a stable, balanced, financially secure family life and that the only families that do have stay-at-home moms that you personally know of are the ones who descend into poverty and have to abandon the ideal you were earlier promoting. That's a pretty dysfunctional "ideal," don't you think?

Perhaps you also fail to notice that you are further buying into the false American "ideal" by wondering how people manage to hang onto it even though they are so poor, instead of wondering whether the "ideal" is something that should be changed.

As to your condescending and tiresome sighing, do it all you like, it goes both ways I’m sure.
Fine.

I cannot believe that I am being called illogical by a Socialist. Ok. So you think that the reason why there are so many divorces is because of men beating women? There are soooo many divorces. Physical abuse is not all that common. No. The reason why there are so many divorces is because feminism is pretty much another veiled excuse to be selfish. Feminism is selfish because it puts the woman's self actualization or whatever the psychobabble term is for it ahead of the needs of the family. Families need order. Patriarchy gives it to 'em. As a Socialist you probably would not understand this because you have no faith in things like free markets which do a heck of a fine job at advancing the state of humanity so why would you respect something like the family which has an even subtler effect on society?

Better to be dead than Red. Better to think than be pink. All Socialists should head off to North Korea. Go have your little workers' paradise there.

Woman can work and not be feminists. There is no relationship between the two. My wife has a great job and makes us a lot of money. She is not a feminist. If she was a feminist I would have broke things off with her as soon as I discovered that she was one of them. When we spawn she will continue to work.

Why is it that previously it was possible to get by on one income but it is not so easy anymore?

I suppose you failed to notice how you yourself are buying into the over-priced ideal of American life, yet undermining it at the same time.

I already admitted that I am guilty of living too much in the American expectation, but I never said it was my ideal. In fact, I purposefully belittled my dependence on the dual income family, I do think it’s a necessary but bad thing, it’s a shortcoming of mine. I put myself into the rat-race, so to speak, but even so, yes, I’m undermining it, I’m undermining it on purpose. I don’t like the materialistic credit card culture, it’s bad for us, it’s bad for our families. IMO


Over the course of this thread, you and some others have been arguing that this bread-winner dad/stay-at-home mom familiy lifestyle is the ideal,…

Whoa whoa whoa there… Who has been arguing for that? Or even about that? Certainly not me. You must be thinking of your imaginary PootWaddle again because I have been doing no such thing in this thread or elsewhere.

But let’s continue.
… that it reflects some natural human impulses, and that therefore these are the most natural and most beneficial gender roles for men and women to conform to.

Yet here you are, admitting that we cannot do it and maintain a stable, balanced, financially secure family life and that the only families that do have stay-at-home moms that you personally know of are the ones who descend into poverty and have to abandon the ideal you were earlier promoting. That's a pretty dysfunctional "ideal," don't you think?

I freely admit that we should not continue down the materialistic path that we are on now. That the society as a whole has lost itself and is on a self destructive path that cannot be maintained forever, as the lack of ability to actually purchase the American standard is beyond our collective abilities… But how am I abandoning the ideal I promoted earlier, when I didn’t promote it, only admitted I’m guilty of it?

Perhaps you also fail to notice that you are further buying into the false American "ideal" by wondering how people manage to hang onto it even though they are so poor, instead of wondering whether the "ideal" is something that should be changed.

I admitted my shortcoming, my failure to be able to easily limit myself. I freely admit that my families two income standard is too hard for me to give up. I need to start mending the ship, to steer a better and less materialistic course, surely. But I never said other people managed to hang onto it, I said they gave it up intentionally, how is that “‘holding on to it?” I admire their ability to give it up like a smoker who wants to quit but isn’t ready to try yet, admires the other person who has already quit smoking…

Again, I do think the American culture “Ideal” should be changed, modified, addressed, changed into something more sustainable at the very least. However, I don’t know what ideal it is that YOU are proposing either, and I do admit that I wouldn’t wager very much that your ideal and my ideal are going the mesh very easily (seeing as how you and I disagree on essentially everything I think the reasons for that prediction should be self-evident).

You’ve accused me of not reading my and other’s posts well enough, by your record of misquoting what I’ve done, perhaps you should concentrate on your own post reading before criticizing mine.

I already admitted that I am guilty of living too much in the American expectation, but I never said it was my ideal. In fact, I purposefully belittled my dependence on the dual income family, I do think it’s a necessary but bad thing, it’s a shortcoming of mine. I put myself into the rat-race, so to speak, but even so, yes, I’m undermining it, I’m undermining it on purpose. I don’t like the materialistic credit card culture, it’s bad for us, it’s bad for our families. IMO



Whoa whoa whoa there… Who has been arguing for that? Or even about that? Certainly not me. You must be thinking of your imaginary PootWaddle again because I have been doing no such thing in this thread or elsewhere.

But let’s continue.


I freely admit that we should not continue down the materialistic path that we are on now. That the society as a whole has lost itself and is on a self destructive path that cannot be maintained forever, as the lack of ability to actually purchase the American standard is beyond our collective abilities… But how am I abandoning the ideal I promoted earlier, when I didn’t promote it, only admitted I’m guilty of it?



I admitted my shortcoming, my failure to be able to easily limit myself. I freely admit that my families two income standard is too hard for me to give up. I need to start mending the ship, to steer a better and less materialistic course, surely. But I never said other people managed to hang onto it, I said they gave it up intentionally, how is that “‘holding on to it?” I admire their ability to give it up like a smoker who wants to quit but isn’t ready to try yet, admires the other person who has already quit smoking…

Again, I do think the American culture “Ideal” should be changed, modified, addressed, changed into something more sustainable at the very least. However, I don’t know what ideal it is that YOU are proposing either, and I do admit that I wouldn’t wager very much that your ideal and my ideal are going the mesh very easily (seeing as how you and I disagree on essentially everything I think the reasons for that prediction should be self-evident).

You’ve accused me of not reading my and other’s posts well enough, by your record of misquoting what I’ve done, perhaps you should concentrate on your own post reading before criticizing mine.
Whatever. I don't feel like getting into the same endless round of explaining your posts to you as we did several pages ago on the issue of Jocabia. You cannot see how the pro-"traditional family"/"traditional gender roles" message got expressed in your posts. Oh, well. It seemed obvious to me.

But if you want to say that this was not part of your argument, fine, let's accept that denial and instead of making this argument be all about you, let's try to steer it back to the topic:

1. Do you agree or do you not agree with my position that the "traditional" gender roles that are part of the American "ideal" lifestyle are mutually reinforcing and reinforced by the exploitative, unequal, and destructive credit-based consumerist lifestyle?

2. Do you agree or do you not agree with the feminist position that challenging the validity of such "traditional" gender roles may be beneficial in challenging the presumed validity of this "ideal" lifestyle that is causing so much trouble in the world today? Note that "challenge" does not mean toss out completely. It merely means to challenge people to think about the real functionality of these "traditions" and to judge whether they should be subject to change, and if so, what kind of change.

3. Do you agree or do you not agree that, if we are going to challenge the presumptions of "traditional" gender roles, we will also open the door to challenging assumptions about other gender-related matters, such as what constitutes "male" and "female," what constitutes a "family," and who qualifies to be considered a "parent"?

4. You have said that you think the ideal should be changed. But do you agree or do you disagree with my position that it will not be possible to change the ideal without challenging the validity and definitions of "proper" roles for the genders?

It is my view that all of these issues should be subject to challenge and review, and that the more we review them, the less unchallengable they get. We see quickly that in history (as I pointed out earlier) this "traditional" model is in fact quite new and radically different from the way things were done for 1000s of years -- i.e. not traditional at all. We also see that, in the present, they are extremely difficult and expensive to maintain for anyone outside the upper economic strata. This throws into doubt the validity of these "traditions" as a model for the family, rather than a model for social class distinctions. And so on. The more you look at it, the less you see. It's kind of like that Verizon Wireless ad, in which a competitor tries to lure away the customer by presenting the same army of support people, but the customer notices they seem a little flat, and when he pushes one, they all fall down like dominoes, because they are just cardboard cutouts. So too with these so-called "traditions."

...

Try to limit the number of questions all at once, it takes too long to answer them all if they are lumped together... But this time, okay.

Before I begin in earnest, we must define the Traditional Gender Roles (TGR) we are talking about. I will do this here so that we can have a common understanding of what that term means when discussing it and reading my answers (feel free to change them for any response, so it's understood you think TGR's are different than these):

TGR's:
A Father who works and brings home the money, doing little or nothing inside of the house, but does do the discipline. A Mother who stays home and does the homemaking, doing all of the inside house work (dishes, cooking, cleaning etc.,) and the kids say please, thank you and do their homework and say grace/prayers at meals…Like the Leave it to Beaver old time TV show. (I’m not saying I endorse or condemn this Leave it to Beaver “Ideal”…, I’m just creating the framework of what I think you mean by TGR and will us this to answer the following questions, please keep it in mind)


1. Do you agree or do you not agree with my position that the "traditional" gender roles that are part of the American "ideal" lifestyle are mutually reinforcing and reinforced by the exploitative, unequal, and destructive credit-based consumerist lifestyle?

Traditional gender roles are NOT reinforced or helped at all by the Credit Card consumerist society. The credit card society makes inflation on the everyday items and makes them too expensive and out of reach of almost any single salary household, certainly beyond the reach of Mr. Ward Beaver to be able to provide for his family in the manner in which his family has become accustomed. Thus, to maintain their standard of living at it’s current level, not to move up mind you, but to tread water and stay where they are, Mr. And Mrs. Beaver decide Mrs. Beaver needs to get a job herself to assist in monetary resources gathering for the home. But this event has the unintended unavoidable side affect of leaving the kids unattended for many hours during the week where they are on their own, they soon stop and then forget to say please and thank you or sorry, as they are only talking to other children, and they stop saying prayers at meals because the family doesn’t eat together anymore... Thus these changes seriously alter the make-up of the family so that it essentially no longer functions except as a mere shadow of it’s former self. So no, the credit card society is nothing but harmful to the Beaver family and TGR.

2. Do you agree or do you not agree with the feminist position that challenging the validity of such "traditional" gender roles may be beneficial in challenging the presumed validity of this "ideal" lifestyle that is causing so much trouble in the world today? Note that "challenge" does not mean toss out completely. It merely means to challenge people to think about the real functionality of these "traditions" and to judge whether they should be subject to change, and if so, what kind of change.

The assumptions in this question make this question nearly impossible to answer, IMO. The first assumption in the question that I dispute is that I don’t think the feminist position challenges the validity of the Beaver home at all. The Feminist positions (from my understanding) demands and requires that Mrs. Beaver gets equal opportunity for education and equal opportunity for advancement at work and equal pay for equivalent work in the professional world, making it blind to her gender as an individual.


The feminist position does not demand that Mrs. Beaver behave differently at home than she wants to behave, especially if she likes her marriage arrangements with Mr. Beaver the way it is.

The second assumption is that we are required to believe is that the Beaver lifestyle is “causing so much trouble in the world today.” How was that established and in what way is that possible? What trouble did the inside of the Beaver homestead cause the outside world? It seems an absurd proposition to make at all nonetheless make it a required assumption in a question about something else….

As to the question, does feminism cause us to re-evaluate the gender roles? No, why should they? It doesn’t though because the Beavers are happy with their gender roles as they are, provided Mrs. Beaver really IS educated as much as she wants and provided Mrs. Beaver really does have all the professional opportunities she wants open to her and her abilities as a ‘sexless person’ (no favoritism to either gender) in the business or professional world, and provided she is fairly rewarded for her work, equal to everyone else (male or female) in equivalent positions.

On the other hand, directly relating the question the inside of the Beaver home, specifically as to “who” (which parent), works and which one stays home, the Beaver Family may have Mr. Beaver stay home IF Mrs. Beaver makes enough money at her new job to support them both at a level that can make it possible for the family to be supported by a single parent income, if so, then Mr. Beaver can quit his job and stay home and do the work that needs to be done for the family there. (remember though, if they live the world from question 1, then the odds are that BOTH of the Beaver parents will have to work just to make ends meet, regardless that they are both paid to their abilities without a sex/gender penalty to either of them)…

3. Do you agree or do you not agree that, if we are going to challenge the presumptions of "traditional" gender roles, we will also open the door to challenging assumptions about other gender-related matters, such as what constitutes "male" and "female," what constitutes a "family," and who qualifies to be considered a "parent"?

Why are we going to challenge the “presumptions” of the Beaver household again? Where was that qualified as a given assumption for this series of questions? How does Mr. Beaver become not the Dad? And when did Mrs., Beaver become not the Mom? It seems to me that they are still Mom and Dad regardless of how much they get paid and regardless of which one stays home. So I guess I have to disagree, the gender roles of who is what gender and what is a family, are not challenged by modern day feminism in any way.

4. You have said that you think the ideal should be changed. But do you agree or do you disagree with my position that it will not be possible to change the ideal without challenging the validity and definitions of "proper" roles for the genders?

Proper roles of genders have not been established. Traditional Gender Roles was established as the Beaver family example for this series of questions so that I could answer them equally. But I never said this definition is what I think is the “proper” gender roles.

As to “proper” roles of the genders, I have to change the scenarios of what the Beavers did and were (assuming they liked what they did, they don’t have to change anything) to tell you what you want to find out about my opinion. If you want to know what do I think is the proper roles of the genders I have to change from the Beaver family to my own person (or an idealized one that I strive to achieve)...

The only gender roles I think really matter are the ones established in a marriage (with or without kids, the marriage arrangement begins the family process and roles become family traditions as the couple become accustomed to each other). With that in mind, I’ll state what I think a Husband should be and what a Wife should be. And to do it from what I believe, I must include my belief in Christianity.

As the Christian husband goes to God in prayer, thanking him for the forgiveness he receives and feels and knows he is not worthy of, and the blessings he gets now and for the true life gift he has from his relationship with God now, with all the mercy and grace he gets daily… The Christian husband wants to offer God a return service of some kind. So he prays to God, “make me your instrument, make me in your image, make me as you would have me be, I will praise you, I thank you, I heap blessings upon you, and I will do any thing for you, I know I cannot earn what you have given me but I will do anything and everything for you. What would you ask of me to do?”

And God responds: “Thank you. I want you to take all those blessings you have for me, to take all of those gifts and good thoughts you have for me, to take all that worship you have for me and to direct it at your wife as you thank me. I want you to take all of your service for me and direct it at her. You are to love her as I have loved the Church; you are to be a reflection of my love on you, a reflection you are to shine down onto your wife. You are to let her see the true love and forgiveness that I have given to you on her from you.

You are NOT to wait for her to deserve it (she may never deserve it), you are not doing this because she deserves it but because you are devoting this submission to ME for what I did for you, you are NOT to want compensation in return from her (she owes you nothing back for this because I already paid you for this), in the same way that you did not deserve my forgiveness and you did not pay me back, you will do this for her. I did not wait for you to earn it before I gave my love to you when I died for you. You are to do this devotion to her to show your devotion for me. What you do for her, you do for me. You are to put her desires before your own and to make her expectations come true, to the best of your ability. That’s what I want you to do.”

Ephesians 5:25-33
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

None of the Christian marriage instructions that I have found in the NT scripture uses the word “obey” for a spouse. As a husband you will do well to remember that. Submission to one another is to be like our submission to God.

And likewise, the Christian Wife is to do the same for her Husband. Her submissiveness to God is to be directed at her husband, and she is to be devoted to show her devotion to God (all like the husband is to be to her), perhaps she will love him too. But I haven’t been able to find anywhere in the NT a place that says the wife is commanded to have a Love for her husband, but adversely, the Christian Husband IS commanded to love his wife…

I do not believe that what I call “proper” roles are the TGR’s of America, nor do I think that they are the roles you think are the TGR when you speak of them. But all the same, the above roles for the husband and wife are what I think are the “proper” Gender Roles in the Christian married couple.

As to the gender changes and cross gender roles and the same sex marriage relationships that you want to include and talk about, that’s not entirely for me to know what they should do. I have no idea what they should do as in I have no idea what they think they will get out of the deal.

Lets call marriage a vehicle for traveling through life, a car if you will for getting us from here to eternity. There are many different types of cars but more importantly, there are different types of drivers. There are families that are like a wheel chair bound would be car driver, so this family has to modify their car to get the controls where they can reach them and use them and drive their car safely. And thus, many families will need to make control adjustments to the original vehicles to make it usable to them (by moving the throttle and break within arms reach for example). But also consider this, if the car is to remain a car, all cars must have wheels, and a propulsion method and the ability to stop and steer… They can only be modified so far and still be a car. Change too many of the important parts (like engine and brakes) and they won’t drive down the road anymore because they aren’t real cars anymore, they only look like cars on the outside, but their guts have been removed and they are nothing more than statues, imitations of cars…(I believe the one male, one female, from the parts of marriage is like removing the engine and brakes from a car)...

...the actuality is that I was talking about not knowing HOW the families I’m aware of can control themselves and limit their financial needs and can survive on a single salary in this day and age.

Honestly, I think you were getting an answer to your question, but maybe the tone was so off-putting that it got garbled for you:

Basically, it's not that they "control themselves," it's that they live in debt. People don't just go into debt for all the extraneous trappings; they live in debt to make ends meet, too.

Maybe they're in debt to pay for the one car that they share, which they need to get to work.

Maybe they're in debt to pay for the new roof that their house had to have because the old one was falling off.

Maybe they're in debt because Sally broke her leg last year and it ended up needing metal pins to hold the bones straight and the doctor bills piled up.

Maybe they're in debt because Joe is a special-needs kid who has to have a tutor if he's ever going to learn to read, and the tutor costs money.

They might be in debt because one paycheck isn't enough for school supplies. For gas for the car they have to have to get to work. For shoes for the growing kids. For groceries.

Debt isn't just for irresponsible middle class people who want another SUV. It's also for the people who can't actually support their family on one salary, but who want to.

free markets which do a heck of a fine job at advancing the state of humanity

Free markets do not nessecarly advance humanity at all. Look at Africa

Africa has this problem, it cannot sell its own goods to its own people. Why? Because the market is so free and open that more efficent competition from America and mostly Europe comes in and sells them the same products, but cheeper. Africa needs to have a protected economy so it can sell its own goods to its own people. When Europe was at the stage Africa is at now, do you really think it would have grown if it had outside markets undercutting everything they were producing. Of course not.

:Better to be dead than Red. Better to think than be pink. All Socialists should head off to North Korea. Go have your little workers' paradise there.

:cool:

I'm a male feminist. I get annoyed and frustrated, not to mention downright angry whenever I see typical female stereotypes, such as helplessness and need to be rescued, in anything.


Well you know I'm starting to think the other way on that.
I was sick of helpless, badly written, useless, screaming in horror, desperate to be rescued women, because that's all you ever see.

I loved Buffy because there was finally a totally kick ass female lead who was obviously in control and powerful. Same thing with Lara Croft. And Rose in Doctor Who.

But I think what recently caught me out was the recent BBC series remake of Robin Hood - who's Maid Marion is as hard and nails and throwing around weapons concealed in her hair to maim baddies at great distances with deadly accuracy.

It's going the other way, where all women have to be deadly, hard ass, serious, intense, predatory warrior-figures.

Which is just as weird of a mis-characterisation as when all men were emotionless steely action heroes.

So can't we have helpers and the helped in equal balance now?

Give me a guy who needs a good woman to sort his life out.
And then later tell me about a woman who could use some rescuing.

This all or nothing approach just makes things constantly one extreme or the other.

Better to be dead than Red. Better to think than be pink. All Socialists should head off to North Korea. Go have your little workers' paradise there.
"Help I'm a neocon and I can't think."
Sorry for the tautology.

I cannot believe that I am being called illogical by a Socialist. Ok. So you think that the reason why there are so many divorces is because of men beating women? There are soooo many divorces. Physical abuse is not all that common. No. The reason why there are so many divorces is because feminism is pretty much another veiled excuse to be selfish. Feminism is selfish because it puts the woman's self actualization or whatever the psychobabble term is for it ahead of the needs of the family. Families need order. Patriarchy gives it to 'em. As a Socialist you probably would not understand this because you have no faith in things like free markets which do a heck of a fine job at advancing the state of humanity so why would you respect something like the family which has an even subtler effect on society?

I was going to respond... but on looking down I saw what the next few posts look like.

You're just not that funny any more, troll. Back under your bridge.

I was going to respond... but on looking down I saw what the next few posts look like.

You're just not that funny any more, troll. Back under your bridge.

"When we spawn" was worth a chuckle, though. Though not intended to, I'm sure, that phrase typifies GF's entire attitude toward women.

I used the word "spawn" for a chuckle. It has nothing to do with my attitude towards women. I just do not think that birth is a magical special fairytale moment. I am not a big fan of Breeders because I think that the world is overpopulated but the old lady wants kids so I guess ishould give 'em to her.

"When we spawn" was worth a chuckle, though. Though not intended to, I'm sure, that phrase typifies GF's entire attitude toward women.

No - as strange as it seems, it would have been slightly amusing if I'd thought he/she actually means what they say.

It's turned into a bad cartoon parody of what was already obvious trolling at the commencement. The next posts will probably be monosyllabic, and credited to a poster called 'Ug'.

Earlier in this discussion I explained that I am not a troll.

Earlier in this discussion I explained that I am not a troll.

You seem to be under the impression that anyone is still 'buying' your material. Explain away - you started out moderately convincing... although not convincing enough to remain below the radar. Now, you are just too obvious.

Your protestations are falling on deaf ears.

Try to limit the number of questions all at once, it takes too long to answer them all if they are lumped together... But this time, okay.
There's nothing to stop you from breaking up your responses into different posts, either, if you feel like it.

Before I begin in earnest, we must define the Traditional Gender Roles (TGR) we are talking about. I will do this here so that we can have a common understanding of what that term means when discussing it and reading my answers (feel free to change them for any response, so it's understood you think TGR's are different than these):

TGR's:
A Father who works and brings home the money, doing little or nothing inside of the house, but does do the discipline. A Mother who stays home and does the homemaking, doing all of the inside house work (dishes, cooking, cleaning etc.,) and the kids say please, thank you and do their homework and say grace/prayers at meals…Like the Leave it to Beaver old time TV show. (I’m not saying I endorse or condemn this Leave it to Beaver “Ideal”…, I’m just creating the framework of what I think you mean by TGR and will us this to answer the following questions, please keep it in mind)
Accepted. This is what I was thinking of.

I will letter the sections below for easier reference.

A:
Traditional gender roles are NOT reinforced or helped at all by the Credit Card consumerist society. The credit card society makes inflation on the everyday items and makes them too expensive and out of reach of almost any single salary household, certainly beyond the reach of Mr. Ward Beaver to be able to provide for his family in the manner in which his family has become accustomed. Thus, to maintain their standard of living at it’s current level, not to move up mind you, but to tread water and stay where they are, Mr. And Mrs. Beaver decide Mrs. Beaver needs to get a job herself to assist in monetary resources gathering for the home. But this event has the unintended unavoidable side affect of leaving the kids unattended for many hours during the week where they are on their own, they soon stop and then forget to say please and thank you or sorry, as they are only talking to other children, and they stop saying prayers at meals because the family doesn’t eat together anymore... Thus these changes seriously alter the make-up of the family so that it essentially no longer functions except as a mere shadow of it’s former self. So no, the credit card society is nothing but harmful to the Beaver family and TGR.
1) This is exactly what I was saying, in part. We agree.

2) However, my point is that the TGR family dig themselves into this hole bey trying to maintain the TGR ideal. They lose it because the ideal lifestyle game they are playing is a scam. If they were to abandon the ideal and develop a different way of living, they may not experience as many problems of this type. That is my point.

3) BTW and FYI, it's Cleaver. The show was "Leave It To Beaver." "Beaver" was the kid's nickname. The family name was Cleaver, and it consisted of Ward, June, Wally and the Beav. Beaver Cleaver. Get it? 1950s tv humor. Wholesome (*ahem*). People drank a lot of martinis in those days.

B:
The assumptions in this question make this question nearly impossible to answer, IMO. The first assumption in the question that I dispute is that I don’t think the feminist position challenges the validity of the Beaver home at all. The Feminist positions (from my understanding) demands and requires that Mrs. Beaver gets equal opportunity for education and equal opportunity for advancement at work and equal pay for equivalent work in the professional world, making it blind to her gender as an individual.

The feminist position does not demand that Mrs. Beaver behave differently at home than she wants to behave, especially if she likes her marriage arrangements with Mr. Beaver the way it is.
No, you missed which assumption I say feminism challenges. It challenges the idea that June Cleaver's role in the family is the "proper" one for the woman, and that Ward Cleaver's role in the family is the "proper" one for the man. Feminism asserts that both June and Ward may fulfill the needs of the family in any manner that works best for them, even if it is very different from the way their neighbors do it, or the way their parents did it, without being criticized or thought "improper" for it.

If these challenges are accepted and if the notion of "proper" is removed from gender roles, then the family that is forced by economic need to have two working parents and to live in a different kind of household arrangement is not going to suffer any social stigma for that. Freed from this pressure to conform to a "proper" model, the family is better able to find alternative ways to prosper and succeed.

C:
The second assumption is that we are required to believe is that the Beaver lifestyle is “causing so much trouble in the world today.” How was that established and in what way is that possible? What trouble did the inside of the Beaver homestead cause the outside world? It seems an absurd proposition to make at all nonetheless make it a required assumption in a question about something else….
If you do not accept that the consumerist/debtor culture uses the ideal to promote ever greater consumption and borrowing, which in turn accelerate price increases until even necessities are priced out of reach, then obviously you will not see the ideal TGR model as part of the problem.

But your first paragraph outlines precisely how the ideal TGR model contributes to these very problems.

D:
As to the question, does feminism cause us to re-evaluate the gender roles? No, why should they? It doesn’t though because the Beavers are happy with their gender roles as they are, provided Mrs. Beaver really IS educated as much as she wants and provided Mrs. Beaver really does have all the professional opportunities she wants open to her and her abilities as a ‘sexless person’ (no favoritism to either gender) in the business or professional world, and provided she is fairly rewarded for her work, equal to everyone else (male or female) in equivalent positions.
This is redundant to your paragraph B, above, so I refer you back to my response B.

E:
On the other hand, directly relating the question the inside of the Beaver home, specifically as to “who” (which parent), works and which one stays home, the Beaver Family may have Mr. Beaver stay home IF Mrs. Beaver makes enough money at her new job to support them both at a level that can make it possible for the family to be supported by a single parent income, if so, then Mr. Beaver can quit his job and stay home and do the work that needs to be done for the family there. (remember though, if they live the world from question 1, then the odds are that BOTH of the Beaver parents will have to work just to make ends meet, regardless that they are both paid to their abilities without a sex/gender penalty to either of them)…
You are now forgetting the issue which I brought up in my earlier post and which you also brought up in your paragraph A above. That is that the ever broadening debtor culture soon prices even basic necessities out of reach of all but the highest single salaries. Reality shows us that even families with two full-time incomes can have problems just putting food on the table, let alone setting aside money for college for two kids, depending on where they live and what kinds of jobs they can get. For instance, in poor states like Vermont, where I lived for 6 years, I knew married couples with children, both parents with college degrees, both working full-time in offices, yet the parents also had to take part-time night and/or weekend jobs in stores or as cab drivers because none of the jobs paid enough to support a family of four. This pattern is repeated in rural areas all over the country as well as in poor urban districts.

F:
Why are we going to challenge the “presumptions” of the Beaver household again? Where was that qualified as a given assumption for this series of questions? How does Mr. Beaver become not the Dad? And when did Mrs., Beaver become not the Mom? It seems to me that they are still Mom and Dad regardless of how much they get paid and regardless of which one stays home. So I guess I have to disagree, the gender roles of who is what gender and what is a family, are not challenged by modern day feminism in any way.
We are challenging the definitions of TGRs because they no longer match the demands of reality. If "mom" and "dad" are described by the terms outlined in your description at the beginning of your post, then the family is doomed to financial failure, unless Ward is making more than $60,000 annually. Even then, they are a little too close to the edge. Better if he earns upwards of $100,000.

G:
Proper roles of genders have not been established. Traditional Gender Roles was established as the Beaver family example for this series of questions so that I could answer them equally. But I never said this definition is what I think is the “proper” gender roles.
We are not talking about what each of us thinks as individuals. We are talking about societal norms.

H:
As to “proper” roles of the genders, I have to change the scenarios of what the Beavers did and were (assuming they liked what they did, they don’t have to change anything) to tell you what you want to find out about my opinion. If you want to know what do I think is the proper roles of the genders I have to change from the Beaver family to my own person (or an idealized one that I strive to achieve)...

<SNIP>

I do not believe that what I call “proper” roles are the TGR’s of America, nor do I think that they are the roles you think are the TGR when you speak of them. But all the same, the above roles for the husband and wife are what I think are the “proper” Gender Roles in the Christian married couple.
I snipped your explanation for length. I get it, but it's not really what I was going for. I was trying to ask whether you think the societal norms should be challenged and reassesed if they do not work well under real circumstances.

Of course, the Christian ideal is really only applicable to Christians, isn't it? And in a multi-religion society, it cannot really be the societal norm for ALL families. The non-denominational Cleaver family fills the societal norm model role much better.

I:
As to the gender changes and cross gender roles and the same sex marriage relationships that you want to include and talk about, that’s not entirely for me to know what they should do. I have no idea what they should do as in I have no idea what they think they will get out of the deal.

Lets call marriage a vehicle for traveling through life, a car if you will for getting us from here to eternity. There are many different types of cars but more importantly, there are different types of drivers. There are families that are like a wheel chair bound would be car driver, so this family has to modify their car to get the controls where they can reach them and use them and drive their car safely. And thus, many families will need to make control adjustments to the original vehicles to make it usable to them (by moving the throttle and break within arms reach for example).
And finally, again, you are agreeing with me. Each individual and family must find the way that works best for it. But arguments that promote TGRs are saying the opposite -- individuals and families should conform to models that are considered "proper." I say that this conformity to "proper" roles -- whether they are about gender or class or any other aspect of lifestyle -- is a major contributing factor to the current condition of our society, which is severely dysfunctional at best.

J:
But also consider this, if the car is to remain a car, all cars must have wheels, and a propulsion method and the ability to stop and steer… They can only be modified so far and still be a car. Change too many of the important parts (like engine and brakes) and they won’t drive down the road anymore because they aren’t real cars anymore, they only look like cars on the outside, but their guts have been removed and they are nothing more than statues, imitations of cars…(I believe the one male, one female, from the parts of marriage is like removing the engine and brakes from a car)...
But why must we all be in cars? Why can we not have other ways of getting through life? In paragraph I, you agreed with me when discussing the realities of life, but finally, in paragraph J, you fall back on insisting on preserving as sancrosanct a model that you have already shown to be worthy of review when it doesn't work. So why do you want to enshrine it as the true meaning of "car" -- i.e. "family"? Why cling to that norm, if the norm is obsolete?

No - as strange as it seems, it would have been slightly amusing if I'd thought he/she actually means what they say.

It's turned into a bad cartoon parody of what was already obvious trolling at the commencement. The next posts will probably be monosyllabic, and credited to a poster called 'Ug'.

This is typical of liberals they think they are so smart and that conservatives are dummies. Reasonable people can disagree on issues. Besides, more couples have structured their realtionships as we do than the way that liberals live. It reminds me of when liberals were surprised that Bush won the second time.

This is typical of liberals they think they are so smart and that conservatives are dummies. Reasonable people can disagree on issues. Besides, more couples have structured their realtionships as we do than the way that liberals live. It reminds me of when liberals were surprised that Bush won the second time.

Dignified with all the response it deserves. And more.

***Still ignored***

My goodness...this thread is still alive? Someone please deliver the killing blow...don't just let it bleed out like this!

This is typical of liberals they think they are so smart and that conservatives are dummies. Reasonable people can disagree on issues. Besides, more couples have structured their realtionships as we do than the way that liberals live. It reminds me of when liberals were surprised that Bush won the second time.

You spammed your own thread with nonsense that liberals use to make fun of conservatives. Here's a tip, when you're trying to pretend to be a group so you can make fun of them don't act in ways that are simply a myth. It shows the man behind the curtain. You were never a good troll, but this last bit is just sad.