A quote by Steven Pinker, explaining why Feminists, especially AMR and SRS, hate Men's Rights Activists so much.

[–][deleted] 81 points82 points83 points 12 years ago* (93 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eulabeia 23 points24 points25 points 12 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Raudskeggr 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]whinemoreplease 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Raudskeggr 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Whisper 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 12 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

What else?

From TRP's sidebar:

The Red Pill: Discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men.

"Sexual strategy", i.e. ways of manipulating women, is what most of the subreddit is about.

If you need more convincing that that sub is ridiculously demeaning to all kinds of people, this is a random paragraph from a random highly upvoted self-post on the frontpage:

Which is exactly why -- and I'm occassionally guilty of it -- stop worrying about convincing bluetards. Just stop. It's not that you're wrong, it's that they just don't "get it". They are physically incapable of getting it. You'll never be able to change their mind, ever. On the internet, or real life. The "clueless" shouldn't be wasting your time -- this is the matrix bitch. They are the hoard that are to be used. When you talk with them, you don't touch these sort of subjects. You don't tell your bro "women are bitches" after a bad date when they are around. You have to baby talk them, and never actually deal with them. They are the social equivalent of an uneducated surf class. It's not that they are bad people, it's just that they are best used as means to an end, and not to be brought into a philosophical debate. You'll never be able to bring them up to your level no matter how hard you try.

Emphasizes mine.

[–]girlwriteswhat 27 points28 points29 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Frensel 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What you did was pick out a post that expressed a very prevalent sentiment on TRP, and tried to use it as evidence that TRP perspective is harmful/wrong. Here's what TRP is "about," put simply and briefly:

They think that men and women, due to differing selection pressures, are different in certain very important and fundamental ways. They think that the general societal practice is to ignore these very important and fundamental differences, to the great detriment of everyone involved.

That's basically TRP in a nutshell - everything else flows from that. There's a lot of disagreement about what exactly those differences are and what exactly they imply. There is also extremely prevalent anger and scorn towards those who don't share the view expressed in the preceding paragraph - but it is trivial to see that if you agree with their premise, you are quite right to be angry and scornful. The anger and scorn on its own is not evidence for or against the validity of their perspective.

[–]Solesaver -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

They think that men and women, due to differing selection pressures, are different in certain very important and fundamental ways. They think that the general societal practice is to ignore these very important and fundamental differences, to the great detriment of everyone involved.

I think there is one prevalent stipulation that you are missing with the entirely reasonable sounding summary. I don't particularly disagree, or find offensive the ideology that you describe. What most Redpillers that I've interacted with though don't just believe that men and women are fundamentally different, but that men are fundamentally superior and more deserving of liberty. That is the point when I become incredulous. Then they pull the, "you'll never understand", and I counter that I understand that women may be different than men, but they're still people and equally deserving of everything that entails.

Oh, there is also a tendency to maintain that all men are a certain way, and those that aren't should strive to be that way. I resent that concept because I don't conform to many traditional male traits, and I don't appreciate being told I'm less of a 'man' because of it. TRP is far to concerned with telling other people how they should be instead of just letting people be themselves for my taste.

[–]Frensel 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

What most Redpillers that I've interacted with though don't just believe that men and women are fundamentally different, but that men are fundamentally superior and more deserving of liberty.

You'll have to back that up. Being angry with women is not the same as asserting that they are "less deserving of liberty." Neither is trying to get them to sleep with you, and sharing tips on the subject.

Oh, there is also a tendency to maintain that all men are a certain way, and those that aren't should strive to be that way. I resent that concept because I don't conform to many traditional male traits, and I don't appreciate being told I'm less of a 'man' because of it.

There is a Nazi-esque streak in there somewhere. I recall a thread about "female led relationships" someone said that "men like that should be taken out and shot," and was upvoted. But that's not really central to the whole TRP deal - it exists, certainly, but not as part of the core ideology, even if you broaden what you consider core ideology considerably beyond what I outlined.

[–]Solesaver 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hmm, I guess those both could be outside their core beliefs. I haven't had a ton of interaction with TRP, I just haven't had an interaction where those two points (1. men not just different, but more deserving, and 2. defining manliness) weren't passionately defended.

Basically, when you put that why it isn't that bad of an ideology. I can get behind men and women are fundamentally, biologically different, and we shouldn't pretend they aren't. At the same time I have always seen, in the same breath, using that ideology as an excuse to respect people differently for their sex. Which is not ok, because (my ideology here) men and women may be different, but they are people first, and deserving of everything that entails.

In a sense I think the conflict of interest (the apparent insanity from my perspective) with TRP is taking your summary of their ideology as the primary truth. It is more important to them men and women are fundamentally different than any other true.

[–]kickrox 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I'll say this; the first time I read your original comment I felt similar to them about it being sort of the reaction described above, but once I read your response to their comment and re-read what you said I actually completely agree with you and also would disagree that it's the opinion described above.

Also, that was a run on sentence.

I don't have a rebut. Even though in the past I've been interested in some of that type of material, in most practical applications that is what it is. A guy trying to manipulate a girl but I think the heart of the community is more based around perfecting your actions in an effort to better yourself and women will come and go with time. I've since aged from those days and I'm just working on my quality of life because in the end that's really all it's about, but I would say that it was those characteristics that turned me on to that type of material and less that I wanted to manipulate women into sex. I think the barrier here is in the language. Mainly the word "manipulate" carries a pretty hefty negative tone, especially when in the context of sexual manipulation. The people on that subreddit wouldn't say they are manipulating women for that reason so when they read that it comes off very negatively and makes people think you're passionately against them. Where as when you say it you may be simply using the definition of the word.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kickrox 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Raudskeggr -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]lillojohn 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Raudskeggr -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]lillojohn 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Raudskeggr -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Endless_Summer 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -12 points-11 points-10 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Endless_Summer 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Endless_Summer 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Endless_Summer4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Endless_Summer 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Endless_Summer6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mindig-4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Endless_Summer2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]johnmarkley 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]johnmarkley 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you feel like you need to select every word that you talk to your partner to make sure that it fits some perceived standard of how you should talk (as TRP suggests you to do), and do hence become unable to talk about issues that actually affect you, then you don't have a healthy relationship at all, and are hurting both your partner and yourself. Of course you try to appeal to them, but when that means that you become unable to be yourself because you feel compelled to constantly harass everybody around you, you have not gained anything except a vain state of being "somebody's partner", and lost much more than that.

I also maintain that "strategy" is an objectifying term. You employ "strategy" when playing chess or when investing in Taiwanese high-tech industries, not when having an enjoyable evening with your love interest.

[–]harryballsagna 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]mindig 12 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

u know ur sub sucks when its users defend trp and get up voted

ur all dumb im out

[–]harryballsagna 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]autowikibot 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Punctuation:

Punctuation marks are symbols that indicate the structure and organization of writing, as well as intonation and pauses to be observed when reading.

In written English, punctuation is vital to disambiguate the meaning of sentences. For example, "woman, without her man, is nothing" (emphasizing the importance of men) and "woman: without her, man is nothing" (emphasizing the importance of women) have greatly different meanings, as do "eats shoots and leaves" (to mean "consumes plant growths") and "eats, shoots and leaves" (to mean "eats firstly, fires a weapon secondly, and leaves the scene thirdly").

The rules of punctuation vary with language, location, register and time and are constantly evolving. Certain aspects of punctuation are stylistic and are thus the author's (or editor's) choice. Tachygraphic language forms, such as those used in online chat and text messages, may have wildly different rules. For English usage, see the articles on specific punctuation marks.

^Parent ^commenter ^can ^toggle ^NSFW ^or ^delete^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| ^FAQs ^| ^Mods ^| ^Magic ^Words

[–]thisprofilenolongere 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]mindig 12 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

u suck noob

[–]thisprofilenolongere -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jizzmaster3000 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschool 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]FallingSnowAngel -24 points-23 points-22 points 12 years ago* (40 children) | Copy Link

It is strange that the r/againstmensrights troll this site and have campaigns of downvoting posts they do not agree with.

Like the ones where you guys decided a skirt didn't count as clothing, and encouraged involuntary gynecology? Or the one where you guys blamed feminism for the horrors of WW1?

Reddit's historians laughed their asses off at you.

There are other sites such as the redpill which I would have thought would be far more offensive to their views.

They're not using sexual assault victims like me as an excuse to scare people.

I suspect they are concerned that MRA are having an affect

Sure.

I for one would not waste my time with an "against feminism" site.

I really have no idea why I'm here, wasting my time. It's not like you're about to wake up and count how many threads just bash feminists, while the more complicated topics are ignored.

They are all boyfriendless

Well, I'm not even sure that the lesbians and the straight men want boyfriends...

But we're not the ones complaining about how hard it is to get laid.

man-hating

You give yourself too much credit.

with the intelligence of an amoeba.

The historians were laughing at you, not us.

[–]Bartab 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]FallingSnowAngel -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bartab 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Endless_Summer 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[+]FallingSnowAngel -18 points-17 points-16 points 12 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]Endless_Summer 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]FallingSnowAngel -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago* (31 children) | Copy Link

I'm a feminist. I gave a home to homeless men and women, and sold my possessions to help men and women in need. I've helped men and women come out of the closet, prevented suicides, and provided an intervention when there was abuse.

While I was doing this, you were judging us based on internet bullshit.

I've been banned in SRS (for taking it too seriously), SRSdiscussion (for demanding the right to reclaim the slurs thrown at me), /r/feminisms (TERF moderator.) and Femradebates (Because you're not allowed to call strawman when someone argues with something you didn't say. Until recently, you couldn't even call a rapist a rapist, not even if they called themselves a rapist.)

I have a positive score, even here, because I support you guys whenever you're actually advocating for men's issues instead of just bashing feminism. I've even had a few top answers in some threads.

So explain why I hate human rights, again? Is it because you guys spam links to every evil thing anyone identifying as a feminist has ever said, while completely ignoring the potential allies? (And making excuses for the way some men abuse their power to harm other men?)

[–]Bartab 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]FallingSnowAngel -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bartab 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]FallingSnowAngel -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bartab1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FallingSnowAngel0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FallingSnowAngel1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FallingSnowAngel1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

As long as you're not actually going to play social justice minesweeper.

Haha, I would never. But the mrm does have a problem right now. We started to make fun of feminists by imitating them. To show how ridiculous some of their claims are. Now it starts to take on a life of its own and some mras really take these things seriously. Which is bad.

Feminism has this problem, too. For example the "teach men not to rape" started as a retort against stupid rape prevention advice. Which was a good thing in my opinion. With the great and funny list with things like "if you see a woman walking down the street, don't rape her". I thought that was a pretty clever way to show how ridiculous some of the rape prevention advice was.

But what happened? Right now, "teach men not to rape" is actually considered as a real thing among many feminists.

I really don't know how to address this mrm problem. Yet.

P.s: I'd love to reply to your other comment. But it will take me some time and I don't know if I get around to do it. I promise I'll try.

[–]FallingSnowAngel2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Isn't that how it always goes with any social activist satire?

Jonathon Swift mocks England for it's crimes against Ireland by suggesting ways they could simply eat the kids instead. England, it's social conscience awakened, demands someone stop the cannibalism.

But it's not just the social justice satire. I've tried going so over the top that nobody could possibly believe me. Demon possessed prophecy? Check. Chosen ones? Check. Cheesy Covergirl corpse-paint? How could that scare anyone?

You would be shocked how easy it is to create your own cult.

I don't have answers for any of this either.

I think in the end, it's a shame that "The Red Pill" has come to mean a group of people who regard "Blurred Lines" as a spiritual hymn. The underlying metaphor in the Matrix, where some people can see patterns, and others see only what they're programmed to, is a terrifying reality.

The only problem is that we can't just unplug anyone, and a lot of the people trying to alter the code have no idea that people like them are the ones who programmed it in the first place. Historically, our most noble ideals are no match for the people determined to enforce them in the laziest and most literal ways possible.

[–]Bartab0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FallingSnowAngel0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bartab1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FallingSnowAngel0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bartab0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FallingSnowAngel0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bartab0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FallingSnowAngel0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bartab-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FallingSnowAngel1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]FallingSnowAngel -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

It can be easily dismissed because you guys ignore or attack the feminists who don't fit your criminal profile.

Can you explain what you've got against sex positive, post-intersectionalist feminism? How about eglatarian moderate feminism? Why is it that we're supposed to ignore the toxic reputation of the MRM, but you guys feel free to smear us all with the same brush...while simultaneously claiming to not just be an anti-feminist circlejerk?

If you guys would actually team up with the feminists who give a shit about men's issues, even without agreeing with them on everything, both sides get more credibility, instead of radfems agreeing with you that we're not real feminists, and our side turning MRA into a joke?

Because right now, conservative gender traditionalists and radfems have managed to flood the marketplace of ideas, by insisting that neither one of us can be taken seriously. While we're throwing spitballs at each other, they fund incredibly bad science designed to prove their bullshit by manipulating the data, and then influencing actual public policy.

Can you understand, at least, why I, and many others like me, are frustrated? We come here in good faith, because we're attracted to the ideas you claim to represent...

But then, we get the warm fuzzy TSA strip search of everything we say, because this subreddit wants revenge for everything someone else did to you. The only difference is, we're not banned. Anyone is free to shout anything at us, they desire...

Edit: The guy beneath me should check out the point totals. They were in the positives when we found them, and even now, we can still see the points they were awarded.

[–]Bartab 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Hyperbole_-_Police -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KaywinnetLeeFrye 21 points22 points23 points 12 years ago (84 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Patriarchy 34 points35 points36 points 12 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link

Christina Hoff Sommers is a feminist too. There are a few feminists that really resonate with r/MR, and he's one of them. Frequently those feminists are hated by other feminists...like CHS, Camille Paglia, and Steven Pinker.

Also, you're leaving out the rest of that quote. Immediately after "science." he says:

But it is crucial to distinguish the moral proposition that people should not be discriminated against on account of their sex — which I take to be the core of feminism — and the empirical claim that males and females are biologically indistinguishable. They are not the same thing. Indeed, distinguishing them is essential to protecting the core of feminism. Anyone who takes an honest interest in science has to be prepared for the facts on a given issue to come out either way. And that makes it essential that we not hold the ideals of feminism hostage to the latest findings from the lab or field. Otherwise, if the findings come out as showing a sex difference, one would either have to say, ‘I guess sex discrimination wasn’t so bad after all,’ or else furiously suppress or distort the findings so as to preserve the ideal. The truth cannot be sexist. Whatever the facts turn out to be, they should not be taken to compromise the core of feminism

http://www.edge.org/events/the-science-of-gender-and-sciencepinker-vs-spelkea-debate

[+]KaywinnetLeeFrye -20 points-19 points-18 points 12 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Patriarchy 20 points21 points22 points 12 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[+]KaywinnetLeeFrye -16 points-15 points-14 points 12 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Patriarchy 22 points23 points24 points 12 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[+]KaywinnetLeeFrye -19 points-18 points-17 points 12 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Patriarchy 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[+]KaywinnetLeeFrye -13 points-12 points-11 points 12 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]KaywinnetLeeFrye-3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_7 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KaywinnetLeeFrye-3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]The_Patriarchy 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]KaywinnetLeeFrye-6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]The_Patriarchy7 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KaywinnetLeeFrye-5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]The_Patriarchy6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KaywinnetLeeFrye-6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]The_Patriarchy10 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Uh, no. "Okay" is very definitely not a register of disagreement. I'm actually pretty baffled as to how you're managing to misunderstand incredibly simple language on such a fundamental level.

Suuuuuure.

http://i.imgur.com/69GnZea.gif

http://i.imgur.com/jdNbB7D.png

http://i.imgur.com/1dkYaCO.gif

http://i.imgur.com/XvFZyet.gif

http://i.imgur.com/LGGxuCx.gif

Given that you're having such difficulty even at this very elementary standard of communication, I'm not sure there's really any point in my trying to elucidate my broader, more complex point.

Bullshit. You said I'm misunderstanding you. I pointed to the ambiguous nature of your replies and invited you to elaborate on your position to avoid any further confusion. Instead of actually elaborating on your position, you've wasted my time demanding an explanation as to why ambiguous replies such as yours are ambiguous. I humored you, in the hopes that you would then actually elaborate on your position and we could get back to the argument at hand. But instead of doing that, you're now trying to end the conversation under the trumped-up pretense that I'm just too fucking stupid to speak with you.

No. I have a far simpler explanation: you know you can't defend your position and, like the people highlighted in the Pinker quote, you're afraid of looking like a fool. So go ahead and run away...coward.

[–]whiskeyisneat2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]The_Patriarchy1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jimmy2e-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]The_Patriarchy1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KaywinnetLeeFrye-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]The_Patriarchy1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KaywinnetLeeFrye1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]The_Patriarchy1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KaywinnetLeeFrye1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]The_Patriarchy1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KaywinnetLeeFrye1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]The_Patriarchy1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KaywinnetLeeFrye1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HolySchmoly 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Raudskeggr 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HolySchmoly 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]KaywinnetLeeFrye -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]HolySchmoly 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]KaywinnetLeeFrye-9 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HolySchmoly5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KaywinnetLeeFrye-11 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HolySchmoly5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KaywinnetLeeFrye0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]circuitology 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Raudskeggr 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]aaqucnaona 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pro_skub 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bartab 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]KaywinnetLeeFrye 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]SwanOfAvon22 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blemish 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SwanOfAvon22 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Except none of those things means "I don't believe men have had it bad either." Please do your homework and actually read his books. The Blank Slate is a great primer, as he spends a good 100 pages being critical of feminism and its pernicious influence on science

edit: from Wikipedia: "Pinker identifies himself as a feminist, specifically an equity feminist, and in The Blank Slate defines equity feminism as "a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology".[23] "

If you're going to harp over his self-identification of feminist, you have to at least concede he's using it in a way that is drastically different than the way that NOW, the AAUW and Tumblr uses it. He does not believe in the patriarchy or rape culture and has openly criticized both theories.

[–]SpiritofJames 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blemish 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Solesaver 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]KaywinnetLeeFrye -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jesus_marley 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Your title implies that Pinker is criticizing feminists,

Whether Steven Pinker intended to or not, he quite eloquently described the typical feminist reaction to anyone who dares to question their Narrative. Patriarchy Theory being a case in point. If ever there was a more religious, faith based explanation for the "oppression" of women, I have yet to find it. It is what is known as an unfalsifiable theory. There is no scenario wherein "patriarchy" is not the culprit. It is the feminist version of Original Sin. Pervasive, responsible for all evil, and the bugaboo that must be defeated in order to achieve Salvation.

The hostility that feminists exude when people deny their faith based explanations is the same that any other religious zealot spews forth when rational people deny them.

EDIT: clarified a sentence.

[–]Blemish 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]KaywinnetLeeFrye -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]KaywinnetLeeFrye -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]KaywinnetLeeFrye-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Roddy0608 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blemish -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Adrestea 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blemish -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CyberToyger 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Blemish 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Adrestea 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr5306 -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Helmut_Newton 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]luxury_banana 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ahora -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]luxury_banana 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ahora 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]seenloitering 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]theAnalepticAlzabo 33 points34 points35 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blemish -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]VortexCortex 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

It's exceedingly narrow-minded to believe that any one religion defines faith.

Faith is belief without evidence. It has a lot in common with instinctual emotions and feelings. If you are alone in the dark and you feel like someone is watching you, that is probably an instinct imparted to you by your evolution from species who had predators that stalked them at night. Those that got paranoid and sought light and safety in numbers when their vision was limited in darkness had a higher chance to survive. The old neurological structures of the brain produce vague primitive ideas that you call feelings. These instinctual impulses (feelings, emotions, etc) are subconsciously triggered by experience -- It was how nature first allowed information about experience to carry from one generation to the next before brains were big enough to have languages. People and animals feel that their emotions are valid without hard evidence -- Their brains believe something without evidence at some level. This is a form of faith.

As an atheist I have even more of the feelings of contentment and peace and awe than I did as a Christian, since I no longer accept that only a god is responsible for these feelings. It's interesting that you speak of faith and cite a book manufactured by the Vatican (which these catholics scholars know is wrong -- eg: There is no virgin birth, that was a mistranslation error) -- A book you have taken on faith to be correct, because you FEEL that a "god" exists. Don't you find it interesting that emotional appeals and faith are so deeply intertwined?

A cyberneticist is not so quick to classify. We realize that everything flows. The distinction between faith and feeling is blurry because the two bleed into one another. The former owing its existence to the latter. Just as "hot" is relative to the creature experiencing it, "faith" and "feelings" exist in various degrees and intermingle as your inadequate language struggles to pin down the bias gradient and scale.

Point being: There are indeed many elements of faith in feminism, as well as illogical reasoning based on feeling. This is because the two are very closely related. Indeed, in the past we took faith and feeling as one and the same. By what authority do humans now separate the two? It's an arbitrary distinction to me, they are both sides of the same bias coin. I accept that humans now formally define faith as belief without evidence, but you do not accept that this is precisely what feelings, emotions, and other instincts are...

P.S. I pity the spiritual person who denies the emotional component that faith invokes; Especially those that ignore the feelings religious writers meant impart their words.

[–]Blemish -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

People and animals feel that their emotions are valid without hard evidence -- Their brains believe something without evidence at some level. This is a form of faith.

This is the problem with your belief.

The thing that is hard about "faith" is that it goes contrary to what you feel. Faith dictates that what you feel or your emotions are wrong.

As an atheist I have even more of the feelings of contentment and peace and awe than I did as a Christian, since I no longer accept that a god is responsible for them.

I really don't know why as a Christian you were led to believe that God is responsible for your feelings. It's quite the opposite actually.

It's interesting that you speak of faith and cite a book manufactured by the Vatican

The Bible was not manufactured by the Vatican. That is a baseless claim. No need to say more.

A book you have taken on faith to be correct, because you FEEL that a "god" exists.

That's an excellent point, because it reinforces my original argument. Many times it's not a "feeling" that makes people believe God exists. With all the wars, murders, lies etc ... one would easily "feel" that there is no God.

But that's where faith kicks in. “faith is the substance of things hoped for, and it is the evidence of things not seen.”

Point being: There are indeed many elements of faith in feminism,

No, No, and No.

If you take the time out to read feminist academia, you will claims that religion if oppressive to women, so no faith needed.

I pity the spiritual person who denies the emotional component that faith invokes

I agree with this, faith does invokes an ocean of feelings. However It is not based on feelings.

[–]whinemoreplease 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iongantas 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blemish 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bartab 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blemish 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hamakua 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]autowikibot 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Christina Hoff Sommers:

Christina Hoff Sommers (born 1950) is an American author and former philosophy professor who is known for her critique of late 20th century feminism, and her writings about feminism in contemporary American culture. Her most widely discussed books are Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women and The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men. Although her critics refer to her as anti-feminist, Sommers thinks of herself as an equity feminist who faults contemporary feminism for "its irrational hostility to men, its recklessness with facts and statistics, and its inability to take seriously the possibility that the sexes are equal – but different."

^Interesting: ^Who ^Stole ^Feminism? ^| ^American ^Enterprise ^Institute ^| ^Carol ^Gilligan ^| ^Sommers ^(surname)

^Parent ^commenter ^can ^toggle ^NSFW ^or ^delete^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| ^FAQs ^| ^Mods ^| ^Magic ^Words

[–]Blemish 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]themboness 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (133 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (132 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]bluthru 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]SHITLORDHERE -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (94 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmellsLikeUpfoo 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (84 children) | Copy Link

[–]Endless_Summer 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Endless_Summer 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Endless_Summer 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]autowikibot 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Endless_Summer1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bluthru 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmellsLikeUpfoo -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluthru 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

He said "atheism ... is fact based", meaning that he seems to say he has some fact that proves there is no god.

Atheism is fact based. An atheist only accepts what there is proof for. There is no proof of gods, so an atheist doesn't bother with them. If it is a fact that gods exist, then an atheist would acknowledge their existence.

Atheism doesn't mean "I have personally searched every square inch of the universe and traveled between dimensions and have not observed any gods".

Someone who's religious goes, "I don't understand, so I guess that means a god did it." An atheist just leaves off that last part and doesn't assume gods are the answer without seeing any evidence.

Someone who has faith does not have to prove their faith, because by definition that's what faith is: belief without proof.

Lack of proof is worthless. Our justice system doesn't work that way for a reason.

[–]SmellsLikeUpfoo -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

An atheist only accepts what there is proof for.

There is no proof that there is no god.

There is no proof of gods, so an atheist doesn't bother with them.

"Not bothering with" is fine. But that's different from knowing that there is no god. I think what you're thinking of is agnosticism, not atheism.

If it is a fact that gods exist, then an atheist would acknowledge their existence.

Which would make them not an atheist.

Atheism doesn't mean "I have personally searched every square inch of the universe and traveled between dimensions and have not observed any gods".

And even if you did search everywhere, who's to say that the god is even observable by your senses or instruments? If you want proof that there is no god, you aren't going to get it. Meaning that atheism is not fact based. You may have a reasonable theory that there is no god, and you will very likely never find evidence to the contrary, but you can never say with certainty that there is no god.

Lack of proof is worthless. Our justice system doesn't work that way for a reason.

Of course it's worthless to you, because you don't have faith. I'm not arguing that you should, just pointing out that you are trying to hold people to one standard when they aren't even concerned with that standard themselves. It's like you're dusting for fingerprints at the scene of a heist while they believe that the "crime" was that Bob shared a cookie with Hannah. You're looking for evidence and proof of wrongdoing when they're already know that nothing happened.

[–]bluthru 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

An atheist only accepts what there is proof for.

There is no proof that there is no god.

Right. What don't you understand? There has to be proof in something's existence for one to believe in it. There is no proof that leprechauns don't exist on the edge of our solar system, but you don't believe in that, right?

I think what you're thinking of is agnosticism, not atheism.

No, I know what I'm talking about. Atheism and agnosticism aren't on the same plane:

http://reason-being.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/chart.png

Almost all atheists are technically "agnostic atheists". Atheism is binary: Either you believe in gods or you don't. Almost no one is truly agnostic which would mean they just don't care or don't even ask the question.

If it is a fact that gods exist, then an atheist would acknowledge their existence.

Which would make them not an atheist.

Exactly, because a deity would be known to exist.

And even if you did search everywhere, who's to say that the god is even observable by your senses or instruments?

Right, but you could say that about anything.

If you want proof that there is no god, you aren't going to get it. Meaning that atheism is not fact based.

LOL, no. It is a fact that we have not observed a deity. That's all we can go on. Someone can make up shit and claim that Thor exists, but that's not based on facts.

You may have a reasonable theory that there is no god, and you will very likely never find evidence to the contrary, but you can never say with certainty that there is no god.

I think I've repeated myself enough. A lack of evidence isn't evidence that something exists. If you're suspected of murder but they have no evidence of you doing it, the onerous isn't on you to prove that you are innocent.

Of course it's worthless to you, because you don't have faith.

Right, because I'm rational. Faith is just assuming something is a certain way without having evidence for it. That's irrational. Faith doesn't mean that something exists. You say I "don't have faith" as if I lack something, when all you're saying is "you don't blindly assume something." Of course I don't. It would be completely silly to assume something without there being evidence or reason for it.

It's like you're dusting for fingerprints at the scene of a heist while they believe that the "crime" was that Bob shared a cookie with Hannah. You're looking for evidence and proof of wrongdoing when they're already know that nothing happened.

http://i.imgur.com/rdqI6Uc.gif

Your entire position is "I don't know, so it must be god!"

[–]SmellsLikeUpfoo -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

There has to be proof in something's existence for one to believe in it.

You still don't understand the concept of faith.

No, I know what I'm talking about. Atheism and agnosticism aren't on the same plane:

We're arguing using different definitions here, so we may as well quit. Wikipedia says:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

So which of these meanings each of us is using significantly effects any discussion.

Right, but you could say that about anything.

Which is to reiterate that you can't prove a negative, even if it's a highly implausible negative.

It is a fact that we have not observed a deity. That's all we can go on. Someone can make up shit and claim that Thor exists, but that's not based on facts.

Again, I'm saying that you can't prove a negative.

A lack of evidence isn't evidence that something exists.

And I never said it was. I said that atheism (using the "belief that there is no god" definition instead of "rejection of belief that there is a god" definition) cannot be proven.

Right, because I'm rational.

Again, this is my point. It's like you're trying to measure decibels with a ruler. Aside from those religious adherents who use apologetics to "prove" their faith, faith is not subject to the tests of rationality or evidence.

i.imgur.com/rdqI6Uc.gif

I was attempting an analogy.

Your entire position is "I don't know, so it must be god!"

Did I ever say that? No. I said that there are no facts which demonstrate conclusively that there is no god.

[–]bluthru2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You still don't understand the concept of faith.

Of course I do.

We're arguing using different definitions here

No we're not. The wikipedia entry doesn't contradict what I was saying:

In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

In the narrow sense. AKA gnostic atheism.

Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

AKA agnostic atheism.

Which is to reiterate that you can't prove a negative, even if it's a highly implausible negative.

You don't have to prove a negative to not believe in gods. That's silly.

Again, I'm saying that you can't prove a negative.

Again, because I don't think you're getting this very simple fact: The onerous is on the believers to prove that gods exist. If there is no evidence of something, there's no reason to believe in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Again, this is my point. It's like you're trying to measure decibels with a ruler.

NO! I'm only measuring what can be measured. That's literally all humans have to go on.

I said that there are no facts which demonstrate conclusively that there is no god.

Just so you don't miss this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

This is why it's wrong to assume that there are gods. Here's why you're confused:

You weren't fully familiar with the definitions of atheist and agnostic.
You fell into the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Hopefully these posts cleared this up for you. Atheism isn't a fucking leap of faith or belief. It's simply "I'm not concerning myself with something there is absolutely no evidence for."

[–]SmellsLikeUpfoo0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No we're not. The wikipedia entry doesn't contradict what I was saying:

There are multiple parts to that wikipedia definition. My point is that we're arguing from different parts of it.

You don't have to prove a negative to not believe in gods. That's silly.

Because I started this argument with the definition of atheism: "belief that there are no gods", and you started it with "lack of belief in gods". I'm not sure how many different ways I can restate this.

NO! I'm only measuring what can be measured. That's literally all humans have to go on.

It's all that humans have to go on if they are acting in a logical, rational, scientific manner. Which is not something that someone of faith does.

Just so you don't miss this link:

And in fact, I linked to it already in another thread with another poster in this very conversation.

You weren't fully familiar with the definitions of atheist and agnostic.

Fully familiar with your definition. There are multiple uses of the word "atheist" in common usage. You used one, I used another. Hence the confusion.

You fell into the argument from ignorance fallacy.

I am not, nor have I ever, argued that there is a god. And I certainly didn't argue that there must be a god because we haven't been able to prove that there isn't one.

[–]bluthru2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SmellsLikeUpfoo1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bluthru1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SmellsLikeUpfoo1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bluthru1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SmellsLikeUpfoo1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bluthru1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SmellsLikeUpfoo1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bluthru1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Even gnostic atheists aren't exactly wrong and do operate on facts. For example, we used to believe that the universe was slowing down after the big bang. People were sure of it. Then, they discovered that the universe was expanding at an increasing rate, which is crazy. So, now that there was evidence for it, it became the new fact.

Another example: I don't believe that the tooth fairy visits everyone in their sleep and rapes them every night. Is it a fact that the tooth fairy does not visit everyone in their sleep and rapes them every night? Yes. The religious person would say, "well how could you measure it? I have faith that the tooth fairy rapes everyone in their sleep at night. I believe it. You can't prove that she doesn't!"

Facts can always be changed if we're presented with new information, but if we're 99.9% sure about something and it's observable and repeatable, we come to know it as a fact. As of now, it's a fact that the tooth fairy doesn't rape everyone in their sleep, and as of now, it's a fact that there aren't gods.

[+]SHITLORDHERE -13 points-12 points-11 points 12 years ago (55 children) | Copy Link

Jesus fucking Christ, don't start with this irrational shit. It's ridiculous. Here, let me help you, half-wit:

The earth is approximately 4.5 BILLION YEARS OLD. Radiometric dating proves this.
"god" and "jesus" are no more relevant than the Greek or Roman Gods and are just as real/true.
The whole parting of the red sea, noahs ark, adam/eve, rising from the dead, walking on water, just like "miracles", are all myths. Just an FYI.
There is absolutely no legitimate, academically accepted peer reviewed proof that "jesus" ever existed. None whatsoever.
Evolution is a scientific fact. Get over it. Our ancestors are over 6 Million years old.
How can anyone "hate" a myth? It's like me proclaiming I hate "Batman". Batman is just as real as "jesus".
http://godisimaginary.com/
The bible was written by men to control/manipulate and profit from man. It's that simple.
Roe vs. Wade is the law of land.
I suggest you read/watch:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

I don't care what myths or fables you believe in provided you keep them to yourself and don't inflict them on others. Keep them out of public schools, science/math, public policy, foreign policy, law and jurisprudence. If you want to raise your children to flip burgers, dig ditches and believe in myths, bully for you. We don't care as long as you don't inflict them on others.

From Seneca, a Roman senator:

"Religion is regarded by the Common People as true, by the Wise as false, and by the Powerful as useful"

From Epicurus:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. If he is both able and willing? Then whence comes evil? If he is neither able, nor willing, then why call him God?"

[–]MRB2012 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

The earth is approximately 4.5 BILLION YEARS OLD. Radiometric dating proves this.

True, but irrelevant.

There is absolutely no legitimate, academically accepted peer reviewed proof that "jesus" ever existed. None whatsoever.

Not only is that a lie, it's the exact opposite of the truth. Historians are in agreement that there was guy named Jesus running around in Judea approximately 2000 years ago.

Evolution is a scientific fact. Get over it. Our ancestors are over 6 Million years old.

That's a lie. The genus Homo is only about 2 million years old.

The bible was written by men to control/manipulate and profit from man. It's that simple.

The Bible was written by over three dozen authors over a period of over a thousand years. To ascribe one motive to all of them is insane.

Roe vs. Wade is the law of land.

Laws change.

"Religion is regarded by the Common People as true, by the Wise as false, and by the Powerful as useful"

From Voltaire, a satirist.

"A witty saying proves nothing."

[–]SHITLORDHERE -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

I love your "sources". You're a simpleton, a half-wit, a pathological liar and delusional.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-human-familys-earliest-ancestors-7372974/?no-ist

http://books.google.com/books?id=PrJ1lmjMakoC&pg=PA116#v=onepage&q&f=false (5.7 to 6.1 Million years old)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrorin_tugenensis

"In 2000, Martin Pickford and Brigitte Senut discovered in the Tugen Hills of Kenya a 6-million-year-old bipedal hominin which they named Orrorin tugenensis. And in 2001, a team led by Michel Brunet discovered the skull of Sahelanthropus tchadensis which was dated as 7.2 million years ago, and which Brunet argued was a bipedal, and therefore a hominin."

NO accredited, legitimate, qualified historians say that "jesus" existed. None, whatsoever. The ONLY "evidence" of "jesus" is that generated by christians and the bible. You don't see historians at ANY major University teaching Middle Eastern History referring to "jesus" as a factual person, period, end of story, full stop. The only people who promote "jesus" as real person are "religious scholars".

I hate to tell cretins like you that it's a woman's body and it's her choice and Roe vs. Wade will remain the law of the land. Get used to it.

One question, do you hire out for children's parties and wear your clown suit? What do you charge for the standard children's party?

[–]autowikibot 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Orrorin tugenensis:

Orrorin tugenensis is a postulated early species of Homininae, estimated at 6.1 to 5.7 million years (Ma) and discovered in 2000. It is not confirmed how Orrorin is related to modern humans. Its discovery was an argument against the hypothesis that australopithecines are human ancestors, as much as it still remains the most prevalent hypothesis of human evolution as of 2012.

The name of genus Orrorin (plural Orroriek) means "original man" in Tugen, and the name of the only classified species, O. tugenensis, derives from Tugen Hills in Kenya, where the first fossil was found in 2000. As of 2007, 20 fossils of the species have been found.

^Interesting: ^Orrorin ^| ^Martin ^Pickford ^| ^{Australopithecus} ^| ^Hominina ^| ^Tugen ^Hills

^Parent ^commenter ^can ^toggle ^NSFW ^or ^delete^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| ^FAQs ^| ^Mods ^| ^Magic ^Words

[–]Blemish 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SHITLORDHERE -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blemish -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MRB2012 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

"In 2000, Martin Pickford and Brigitte Senut discovered in the Tugen Hills of Kenya a 6-million-year-old bipedal hominin which they named Orrorin tugenensis.

Which is not part of the genus Homo. Orrorin tugenensis might or might not be closely related to humans, that question has not been settled.

NO accredited, legitimate, qualified historians say that "jesus" existed.

That's actually what every last one of them says. Borderline insane makers of internet documentaries are the ones who disagree.

You don't see historians at ANY major University teaching Middle Eastern History referring to "jesus" as a factual person, period, end of story, full stop.

Yes you do. Actually, that's all they teach about Jesus. Aside from "guy who the Romans crucified circa 2000 years ago" we don't know much else.

I hate to tell cretins like you that it's a woman's body and it's her choice and Roe vs. Wade will remain the law of the land.

Support for Roe is declining. When the old white men who support it are finally gone and Hispanic Catholics take their places, what makes you think Roe will last?

[–]bluthru 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SHITLORDHERE 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]MRB2012 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]SHITLORDHERE1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MRB20121 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SHITLORDHERE1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MRB20121 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SHITLORDHERE1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MRB20121 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SmellsLikeUpfoo -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]SHITLORDHERE 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmellsLikeUpfoo 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmellsLikeUpfoo -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SHITLORDHERE1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SmellsLikeUpfoo1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SHITLORDHERE0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SmellsLikeUpfoo1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SHITLORDHERE -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

No, they didn't. You won't see "jesus" taught as a real person at any legitimate University in their Middle Eastern History courses. WHY, because there is no evidence of existence. You'd think the most important figure in christendom would have at least as much proof as Caesar, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, etc., but there simply isn't.

The only real evidence outside the bible is Josephus. Who lived LONG after "jesus" and offers no proof, whatsoever.

Hitchens in "God is not Great": Hitchens stated Jesus' existence being " highly questionable" as found on p.114 of god is not Great. Hitchens responds that there isn't convincing evidence for Jesus, that the gospels have non-contemporary status and don't agree with each other on the important details of Jesus' life.

If you're going to make claims of what specific individuals said, at least have the intellectual honesty to cite legitimate, sourced citations, which heretofore, you have failed to do. Do you see how I use citations and sources.

[–]blueoak9 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SHITLORDHERE -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Take note NONE OF THE PEOPLE within this Wikipedia document is a historian. Jesus fucking Christ, you're an idiot.

Paul Barnett, is a FUCKING BISHOP you doorknob. He teaches theology and is a new testament "scholar". NOT A HISTORY SCHOLAR.

Richard Bauckham, is goddam Theologian and new testament studies. WTF that means, I don't know. NOT A HISTORY SCHOLAR.

Raymond E. Brown, is a DEAD Roman Catholic Priest. WTF NOT A HISTORY SCHOLAR.

Darrell Bock, is an evangelical new testament scholar. you moron. NOT A HISTORY SCHOLAR.

John Dominic Crossan, is a former priest, new testament scholar and studies early Christianity. NOT A HISTORY SCHOLAR.

WTF do half-wits like you NOT fucking understand about what constitutes legitimate historical verification and veracity. Allow me to outline for you the basic requirements of historical proof:

Credible, eyewitness accounts. Written documents and/or photographs from the period. Negative evidence. The use of Primary sources. Secondary sources. Archeological data and items.

The irony is not lost upon me that your "criteria" demonstrates and utilizes NONE of the requirements. EVERY person cited in that shitstain of a Wikipedia "historicity of jesus" is a religious person. Fucking grow up and get some real sources and data from legitimate Professors and Historians in Middle Eastern and Ancient History who don't have a religious axe to grind. WTF. :) You're beyond ridiculous.

The four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) cannot be authenticated; and even if they could, they cannot be proved to be contemporary accounts as witnesses to the events described or even recorded recollection. They were most likely popular stories handed down by verbal tradition and miscellaneous writings of the early Christian sects, which were later collected and revised under the support of the Church (not all of the gospels were approved), and eventually translated into Latin by St. Jerome in the 4th Century A.D. The English Bible, as stated supra, is even more "attenuated", being translated by William Tyndale, who used the Hebrew and Greek texts and not the Latin Vulgate; which translation was later revised (and edited) as the King James Version. To argue over which version of the Scriptures is correct is merely to argue the question.

http://www.bandoli.no/historicalrecords.htm

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

[–]SmellsLikeUpfoo -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]VortexCortex 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I can prove that there are no gods. Allow me to demonstrate.

Should Neo worship the Agents of the Matrix as gods for their supernatural powers? No. Should we worship Stargate Aliens simply because they have more technology or bigger brains than us? No. Such belief would be akin to cargo-cultism.

Am I a god because I manage cybernetic simulations in my daily work? No.

The term "god" referred to ancient deities. All of the religions that espouse the existence of such deities have been proven wrong by science, they are simply collections of legends and myths. We have much better explanations for reality now.

The philosophical concept of a higher intelligence should not be conflated with a god. To do so is to embrace cargo cultism and attribute the reverence some have for ancient gods to powerful alien minds.

There is no evidence that the fabric of space-time is self aware, but if it were it would not be a god, it would be a cybernetic entity which we could explain and analyze via science. The god of a cargo cult does exist, but it is not a god. I would not worship a powerful alien mind or the administrator of this reality -- They are not gods.

God is dead. The old gods were false. The term "god" is deprecated and can no longer apply. Knowledge has made magic into science.

[–]SmellsLikeUpfoo 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anonlymouse -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]xXCptCoolXx 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SmellsLikeUpfoo 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]xXCptCoolXx 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]autowikibot -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Russell's teapot:

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

Image ⁱ

^Interesting: ^The ^God ^Delusion ^| ^Philosophic ^burden ^of ^proof

^Parent ^commenter ^can ^toggle ^NSFW ^or ^delete^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| ^FAQs ^| ^Mods ^| ^Magic ^Words

[–]SmellsLikeUpfoo 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]SHITLORDHERE -9 points-8 points-7 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmellsLikeUpfoo 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]autowikibot 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Argument from ignorance:

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

Image ⁱ - Bertrand Russell, whose teapot analogy is often used to illustrate the argument from ignorance [1]

^Interesting: ^Argument ^from ^silence ^| ^Evidence ^of ^absence ^| ^Philosophic ^burden ^of ^proof ^| ^Russell's ^teapot

^Parent ^commenter ^can ^toggle ^NSFW ^or ^delete^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| ^FAQs ^| ^Mods ^| ^Magic ^Words

[–]blueoak9 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SHITLORDHERE -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]blueoak9 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmellsLikeUpfoo 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]SHITLORDHERE -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SmellsLikeUpfoo 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]blueoak9 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]misterdoctorproff 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alzael -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]misterdoctorproff 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alzael 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

I can list pages of atrocities and anti-theist persecutions committed in the name of state atheism

No. You can list things done by atheists. Not done in the name of atheism. Atheism means nothing more than you don't believe in a god. There's nothing to be done, in the name of. Anything beyond that is something else being artificially attached to it. Yours is a tired old theist statement that never seems to do die, no matter how many times it's pointed out that it's full of shit.

What you are describing are what is called cults of personality. Essentially a religion centered around a person instead of a god. Such as, say, North Korea. Where Little Kimmy is literally considered to be a god by the people he rules over. The same with Russia and China. The established churches were not destroyed because of atheism, they were destroyed because they were competition for the state-centered "religion" Stalin and Mao were trying to create. Nobody said atheists were automatically rational.

What are you trying to say here? That any individual belonging to a religion should be barred from any position of authority?

More accurately that it should be a serious consideration before you make the decision to put them in charge of anything important. If you were looking for someone to vote for in the next election and one of the candidates said that he believed in a magical race of gnomes that lived in his underpants drawer, would you vote for him? Because logically there's no intellectual difference between that and saying you believe in a god. Both claims have the exact same level of support and evidence. One is just more socially acceptable. Did you actually read that link? Or any of the studies inside it, to see what goes on when you put people like that in charge of medicine? Or what can happen when you put irrational people in charge of anything for that matter.

[–]misterdoctorproff 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

No. You can list things done by atheists. Not done in the name of atheism.

Are you being serious?

Atheism means nothing more than you don't believe in a god.

And? Religion means nothing more than believing in a god. I can play word games, too.

There's nothing to be done, in the name of.

This is such an incredibly stupid claim it boggles the mind. Any idea can have something done "in the name of."

Yours is a tired old theist statement that never seems to do die, no matter how many times it's pointed out that it's full of shit.

You are trading on the ambiguity of words in order to make it seem as though religion can be collectivized but atheism can't through a combination of weak deflections and excuses. You're not that clever. Doing the intellectual equivalent of running and hiding is a pretty pathetic way of pointing out that my claim is full of shit.

What you are describing are what is called cults of personality.

Another meaningless deflection. The Kims of North Korea are not seen as gods in the traditional theistic sense. The ideology of Juche can be considered to be North Korea's traditional "religion" and there is a reason I put that into quotes (you put it into quotes as well and completely missed the implication); Juche is completely political and involves no theistic component. The same is true of Stalin and his cult of personality, which was considerably less intense than that of the Kims.

The established churches were not destroyed because of atheism, they were destroyed because they were competition for the state-centered "religion" Stalin and Mao were trying to create.

They were destroyed because they were seen as irrational in contrast to the incredible rationality of the state and its leaders. You twisting that into not involving atheism in any way is an unsurprising tactic of inept modern day Voltaires.

Nobody said atheists were automatically rational.

You are saying that right here by claiming that anyone who reveres the state "like" a religion and adhering to dogma, whatever it may be, but involving no theistic component suddenly makes them not atheist anymore.

More accurately that it should be a serious consideration before you make the decision to put them in charge of anything important.

I guess that would be a "yes" to my question. Deny any religious individual basic human rights? No problem there. Why not go full-on 1984 and put cameras in their homes to make sure the crazies don't do anything dangerous?

If you were looking for someone to vote for in the next election and one of the candidates said that he believed in a magical race of gnomes that lived in his underpants drawer, would you vote for him? Because logically there's no intellectual difference between that and saying you believe in a god.

I take it back: you aren't even close to Voltaire. You're just repeating the same fallacies as every angst-ridden teenager who's suddenly become "enlightened." Races of magical gnomes in one's underwear drawer is a falsifiable belief. Look in your drawer. Are there gnomes? No? Existence disproven.

Did you actually read that link?

Yes, and the story as many are trying to spin it doesn't make much sense to me. Tamesha Means never asked for an abortion, yet the hospital didn't treat her anyway? This seems to be a case concerning extremism concerning this hospital specifically and the USCCB's poor management of it, as I can find no evidence in their directives stating not to treat the mother even if her fetus is going to kill her nor of any other cases except at the same hospital.

[–]Alzael 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Religion means nothing more than believing in a god. I can play word games, too.

No, theism means that. Religion and theism are not the same. So no, you can't play such games.

This is such an incredibly stupid claim it boggles the mind. Any idea can have something done "in the name of."

It isn't an idea. It's a rejection of an idea. Disbelief of an idea is not in itself an idea. I am sorry but words have meanings. I also note that you had to resort to ad hominems. So it seems that you've run out of ways of pretending you ever had a point.

You are trading on the ambiguity of words in order to make it seem as though religion can be collectivized but atheism can't through a combination of weak deflections and excuses. You're not that clever. Doing the intellectual equivalent of running and hiding is a pretty pathetic way of pointing out that my claim is full of shit.

How so? I see the claim, but not the proof. So far we've established that you don't actually know the proper usage of the words, I will point out.

The Kims of North Korea are not seen as gods in the traditional theistic sense.

I didn't say they were. They are however seen as gods. They took that title. Also you're the one playing word games here. I was talking about religions, not gods. I only mentioned that they were considered gods as part of the larger point. You are trying to turn that into my point and argue against it.

They were destroyed because they were seen as irrational in contrast to the incredible rationality of the state and its leaders. You twisting that into not involving atheism in any way is an unsurprising tactic of inept modern day Voltaires.

That is simply a straight out lie. Stalin viewed religion as an "opiate" for the people used to exploit the working class, much as Marx claimed. He later revived the church as a patriotic organization under his control.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about.

You are saying that right here by claiming that anyone who reveres the state "like" a religion and adhering to dogma, whatever it may be, but involving no theistic component suddenly makes them not atheist anymore.

I never said that. You are conflating atheism, theism, and religion into a single mass and misusing.

Being an atheist does not rule out being religious. It rules out being a theist. There several religions that are entirely atheistic, or are compatible with it. Such as certain versions of Buddhism. Men like Stalin created their own religions. They were atheists, they did not do what they did because they were atheists. And you have yet to provide an argument against this.

Deny any religious individual basic human rights?

Funny, I don't recall saying anything close to that. Now you're simply ranting.

Races of magical gnomes in one's underwear drawer is a falsifiable belief. Look in your drawer. Are there gnomes? No? Existence disproven.

They are magic, so they can turn invisible. Just because you can't see them does not mean they are not there.

Yes, and the story as many are trying to spin it doesn't make much sense to me. Tamesha Means never asked for an abortion, yet the hospital didn't treat her anyway? This seems to be a case concerning extremism concerning this hospital specifically and the USCCB's poor management of it, as I can find no evidence in their directives stating not to treat the mother even if her fetus is going to kill her nor of any other cases except at the same hospital.

So then you didn't actually read it. You could have just said so.

Now did you have a real point to make? Or are you done with your inane babbling?

[–]misterdoctorproff 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I see I've hit a nerve, as you've done nothing whatsoever to address what I've said.

No, theism means that. Religion and theism are not the same. So no, you can't play such games.

This is a meaningless technicality. We were talking about atheism and theism, so what's the point of bringing up non-theistic religion?

It isn't an idea. It's a rejection of an idea.

There is no such thing as an opinion one holds that cannot be an idea. This makes no sense. The only way to have no idea is to have no opinion at all.

I am sorry but words have meanings.

I agree, and you've done nothing but play on the ambiguity of some words and outright redefine others.

I also note that you had to resort to ad hominems.

"Ad hominems" is not a term. It's mixing English plural with Latin and hence makes no sense.
An ad hominem argument requires an attack on the individual. Stating that a claim is stupid was not an attack on you and is therefore not ad hominem.

That you would use it these two ways shows you don't really know what the term means and likely just heard it used by someone else.

I was talking about religions, not gods.

Again, there is little to be said about non-theistic, non-spiritual dogma in a topic about theism and atheism.

That is simply a straight out lie. Stalin viewed religion as an "opiate" for the people used to exploit the working class, much as Marx claimed.

The Wikipedia article on Stalin states: "Raised in the Georgian Orthodox faith, Stalin became an atheist. He followed the position that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. His government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.[96]"

You can't hide from that one.

He later revived the church as a patriotic organization under his control.

Yes, in order to not be executed like their kin.

They were atheists, they did not do what they did because they were atheists.

The evidence speaks for itself. Atheistic education aimed at specifically purging religion, the execution of hundreds of thousands of clerics, again aimed at creating an atheist society, and the Society of the Godless, all of which occurred in the Soviet Union alone, is pure secular atheism. It was a central tenet to these people and their ideologies, regardless of what Dawkins says.

Funny, I don't recall saying anything close to that.

You just admitted that any religious individual should undergo "serious consideration" before putting them in charge of "anything important," a restriction I doubt you would put on the rational atheists. "Anything important" could mean anything from running for office to voting, so yes, this is an obvious denial of human rights.

They are magic, so they can turn invisible.

You said magical, not invisible. All I have to work with is what you say.

So then you didn't actually read it. You could have just said so.

Considering that I referenced the story, its details and the people involved, I obviously did read it, but I'm having my doubts that you in fact did.

[+]Blemish -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alzael 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blemish -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alzael 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blemish -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alzael 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]MRB2012 -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alzael 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]RubixCubeDonut 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alzael 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MRB2012 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alzael 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Really? You went with that tired old argument that's been laughed at for years? Ok,we'll go there.

They did create religions. They turned the state into a religion with them as the god. It's referred to as a cult of personality. More to the point however, you'll note that I spoke of religion in terms of it's ignorance of reality and said that no society became worse because of rationality. What those men created was just as irrational and fake as something like Christianity is because they used the exact same model and did things the exact same way. The same as in North Korea. Little Kimmy-ill is officially god there. As is his dead father.

So yes, they existed. They also prove my point.

Humanity is always at it's worst when it no longer has to answer to reality. Conversely no society ever became the worse for being too rational.

[–]MRB20120 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alzael2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MRB20120 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alzael2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MRB20120 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alzael2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MRB20120 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alzael2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MRB20120 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alzael2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Equality of men.

That is not a belief of democracy. It's not even a necessary component of a democracy. Nothing about democracy says men are equal, or have to be equal. We just believe that they should be. That is not a component of democracy in and of itself. Democracy is a system of government, not a set of beliefs. Lie as much as you want but that won't make what you're saying true.

Let's look at the definition you tried to use.

You mean the third definition out of a set of five from that particular source? The definition that applies to a different topic within the conversation than the one that you are trying to apply it too.

Given that Christianity most definitely does not have a united set of beliefs and practices, it is obvious that Christianity is not a religion.

That definition didn't say united. So even your own lie fails before anyone even has to show that it's a lie.

It always has to come down to lies with you guys doesn't it. Just once I wish you would make an honest argument or at least give up once you're cornered. Rather than this half-assed attempt at trying to pretend you have a point.

[–]MRB20120 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alzael2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MRB20120 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alzael2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MRB20120 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alzael2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MRB20120 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alzael2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MRB20120 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]UnholyTeemo 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MRB20120 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mister_Kurtz -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blemish -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mister_Kurtz 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]evengraves 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SheepInWolvesClothin 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Eh.... that's a bit of a dark road to travel. There are some very 'angry' MRAs out there, and feminists could use this same passage back at them/us. They view us as being the ignorant faith-based angry people, and themselves as the targets of undue anger.

Do be aware that most people who call themselves feminists aren't Tumblr/Reddit feminists, much like most Christians aren't bible thumping bigots. A lot of radfems will get pretty frothy if you bring up men's rights issues, but the more casual/passive non-activist ones will either roll their eyes at you or just give pause, just like most Christians don't foam at the mouth about atheism and secularism.

How many times have you heard a feminist react to an MRA issue (like men being the VAST majority of workplace injuries/deaths) with a comment like 'I understand/agree, but women still have it worse as a whole!'. Could you describe that as faith-based? Perhaps. But could you really describe it as 'react[ing] to unbelief with rage'?

Blanketing their entire movement as faith-based, and their opposition to men's issues as just hostility towards doubt/skepticism, just seems really childish to me. 'Our position clearly threatens their faith in feminism, because they think their position clearly threatens our faith in "patriarchy"'.

This kind of stuff seems needlessly circle-jerky, and I severely doubt this helps our cause. Can we go back to discussing the rights of men, rather than just being a subreddit where 3/4 of the posts are just bashing feminism or pointing out how long a woman's prison sentence is? If all we do is sit around patting ourselves on the back and pointing fingers at the opposition, I really don't feel like we have anything to pat ourselves on the back for.

[–]saoran -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Blemish -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]t-rexclub76 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Bartab 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ahora -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]marley13 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ahora -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Raudskeggr -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]warspite88 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Blemish -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Patriarchy 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Blemish -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Blemish -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Blemish -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Suttreee -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]luxury_banana 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Suttreee -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]warspite88 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Suttreee -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hameed67 -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Hameed67 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	A quote by Steven Pinker, explaining why Feminists, especially AMR and SRS, hate Men's Rights Activists so much.
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	449
Comments	338
Date	March 6, 2014 5:08 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1zqcua/a_quote_by_steven_pinker_explaining_why_feminists/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/a-quote-by-steven-pinker-explaining-why-feminists.1003092 https://theredarchive.com/post/1003092

Comments