All we're getting is male hysteria and frantic changing of subject.
Erm, this is essentially how your logic goes: You think lack of protection for males somehow demonstrates protection for females.
Look, I know you are trying to downplay the true gruesomeness of misogyny in the world because it is too horrifying to think about. These crimes are so nauseating that you have a hard time believing anyone could possibly be capable of them.
Look, I get it. I have done the same things when learning of these sick crimes. These crimes are so nasty, sick, vile, that you are desperately trying to rationalize them. These crimes are so gruesome that you are having a hard time believing they occurred. I understand that reaction completely. It is a human response.
You are trying to downplay the true nature of the crimes. You are frantically grasping, clamoring for some logic that you hope against hope might be buried within. You are trying to absolve the perpetrators of their true evil. But the fact of the matter is__.
Employment and money, that's all you got. Very little mention of actual crimes against a person's humanity. Artfully skating over the topic of violence that breaches a person's inner core of being.
Its absence is conspicuous.
Oh, but what about protection from wild mastodons and boars and sabre-toothed tigers, mras would probably screech and scream. Well, try to exercise your powers of observation and analysis. If you'll notice, you don't necessarily have to fight an animal with your bare hands. Where is it written that a human must go and choke off and wrestle an animal with his or her bare hands in order to detain it? This is why tools and weapons were invented. So that humans could kill an animal at a safe distance. This is called evolution, intelligence, working smarter and not merely working harder.
Tools, in other words, technology, innovation, inventions -- these can be used and executed without the use of brute strength. Intelligence, dexterity, and skill are the other tools required. In other words, women would be able to hunt and gather just fine without, essentially, being men.
By the way, a little detail tidbit, mastodons and sabre-toothed tigers don't exist anymore.
Yet still the world is dangerous. Where exactly is the danger coming from? Is the danger emanating from mystical disembodied forces out in the great cosm of the universe? Is it due to ghosts? Werewolves? Vampires? Aliens? I am asking you, dear readers, to be completely honest with yourselves. I want you to open your eyes, look at the situation with clear fresh eyes, from a reasonable distance. That means not too close, and not too far. Do not casually glaze over what is in front of you. Do not dismiss it with a careless sweeping wave of the hand. All the danger, harm, violence in the world is caused by men.
any tiem someone mentikns actual violnece against women__ these activists immediately counter wih the asinine argument that there is violence against males also. Okay, fair enough. But how exactly is that relevant? Is it because men are violated against, this somehow makes it morally justified for women to be violated against? So now apparently being "protective" of women means treating women at the same level of garbage that males treat other males. -- CNN breaking news: in other words, males treat everyone like 3ht. This is not being protective of women.
sigh. is this supposed to be a demosnt of menss superior logic and intellect over that of women? Is this a demonst of men's "protectiveness" towards women?"
mm-hmm, mm-hmm.
you do realize you have not been refuting a single thing I;ve stated?
In fact, you are atutally providing supporting [[research,, evidence ]]] in favor of my hypothesis.
yuou claimed that my [[[stments, declrataions __]] were false. and yet then you immediately listed reasons that they happen. [[you are providing "reasons"//]]]
ia am not quite sure why people thinking this is a good debate stragety. ___ I have seen this type of cognitive processe in a numnbe of different places, mostly on the internet.
well how do you think anything ahappens?/ allll events [[__pohenonmmna']] have a chain of causation.
ohh, and thank you for providing the final nail in the coffin of the notion that men are "logical."
**Or perhaps, just perhaps we should look at a much more accurate and therefore much more politically incorrect explanation.
Perhaps this notion of men being protective of women stems from the fact that white men are chivalrous and protective of their women, whereas men of other races are not chivalrous nor protective of their women.
Yep, I am bringing up the subject of race. Well, why not? We are already challenging the subject of sexism-against-women. We have stated the fact that stating that women are privileged far more than men are. Hell, we've already offended half the people in the room. Might as well go for the other half.
Erm, this is essentially how your logic goes: You think lack of protection for males somehow demonstrates protection for females.
Look, I know you are trying to downplay the true gruesomeness of misogyny in the world because it is too horrifying to think about. These crimes are so nauseating that you have a hard time believing anyone could possibly be capable of them.
Look, I get it. I have done the same things when learning of these sick crimes. These crimes are so nasty, sick, vile, that you are desperately trying to rationalize them. These crimes are so gruesome that you are having a hard time believing they occurred. I understand that reaction completely. It is a human response.
You are trying to downplay the true nature of the crimes. You are frantically grasping, clamoring for some logic that you hope against hope might be buried within. You are trying to absolve the perpetrators of their true evil. But the fact of the matter is__.
Employment and money, that's all you got. Very little mention of actual crimes against a person's humanity. Artfully skating over the topic of violence that breaches a person's inner core of being.
Its absence is conspicuous.
Oh, but what about protection from wild mastodons and boars and sabre-toothed tigers, mras would probably screech and scream. Well, try to exercise your powers of observation and analysis. If you'll notice, you don't necessarily have to fight an animal with your bare hands. Where is it written that a human must go and choke off and wrestle an animal with his or her bare hands in order to detain it? This is why tools and weapons were invented. So that humans could kill an animal at a safe distance. This is called evolution, intelligence, working smarter and not merely working harder.
Tools, in other words, technology, innovation, inventions -- these can be used and executed without the use of brute strength. Intelligence, dexterity, and skill are the other tools required. In other words, women would be able to hunt and gather just fine without, essentially, being men.
By the way, a little detail tidbit, mastodons and sabre-toothed tigers don't exist anymore.
Yet still the world is dangerous. Where exactly is the danger coming from? Is the danger emanating from mystical disembodied forces out in the great cosm of the universe? Is it due to ghosts? Werewolves? Vampires? Aliens? I am asking you, dear readers, to be completely honest with yourselves. I want you to open your eyes, look at the situation with clear fresh eyes, from a reasonable distance. That means not too close, and not too far. Do not casually glaze over what is in front of you. Do not dismiss it with a careless sweeping wave of the hand. All the danger, harm, violence in the world is caused by men.
any tiem someone mentikns actual violnece against women__ these activists immediately counter wih the asinine argument that there is violence against males also. Okay, fair enough. But how exactly is that relevant? Is it because men are violated against, this somehow makes it morally justified for women to be violated against? So now apparently being "protective" of women means treating women at the same level of garbage that males treat other males. -- CNN breaking news: in other words, males treat everyone like 3ht. This is not being protective of women.
sigh. is this supposed to be a demosnt of menss superior logic and intellect over that of women? Is this a demonst of men's "protectiveness" towards women?"
mm-hmm, mm-hmm.
you do realize you have not been refuting a single thing I;ve stated?
In fact, you are atutally providing supporting [[research,, evidence ]]] in favor of my hypothesis.
yuou claimed that my [[[stments, declrataions __]] were false. and yet then you immediately listed reasons that they happen. [[you are providing "reasons"//]]]
ia am not quite sure why people thinking this is a good debate stragety. ___ I have seen this type of cognitive processe in a numnbe of different places, mostly on the internet.
well how do you think anything ahappens?/ allll events [[__pohenonmmna']] have a chain of causation.
ohh, and thank you for providing the final nail in the coffin of the notion that men are "logical."
**Or perhaps, just perhaps we should look at a much more accurate and therefore much more politically incorrect explanation.
Perhaps this notion of men being protective of women stems from the fact that white men are chivalrous and protective of their women, whereas men of other races are not chivalrous nor protective of their women.
Yep, I am bringing up the subject of race. Well, why not? We are already challenging the subject of sexism-against-women. We have stated the fact that stating that women are privileged far more than men are. Hell, we've already offended half the people in the room. Might as well go for the other half.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment