This is why we need MRM

That doesn't pan out in real life - people with the desire and initiative to do so have proved the "level the field" philosophy wrong, and will continue to do so, by elevating themselves without taking anything away from anybody.

You make it very clear that you have no concept of history and the benefits we enjoy relative to the past. Before we had school lunches and food stamps, a significant amount of the U.S. population suffered from deformities brought on by malnutrition. Deformities like rickets made it nearly impossible to pursue labor as a career, and basically every kind of nutritional deficit is linked to some diminished mental capacity.

There wasn't any "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" for those people. They lived their short lives in poverty and indignity because of something that was entirely avoidable, and almost exclusively a product of whom they were born to.

You'll pardon me if I'm not eager to go back to that. I'll take taxes and a population that only knows what a starving person looks like because they saw one on T.V.

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You make it very clear that your knowledge is focused only on short spans of history, either due to the choice to ignore, or the ignorance of, other times.

Malnutrition in the U.S. existed during the early 20th century because of environmental and economic disasters brought on by government mismanagement. School lunches and food stamps did not solve that problem - improved economy and a better understanding of nutrition did. Hell, school lunches haven't even been very nutritious throughout the history of their existence - they're heavily reliant on cheap, low quality, mass-produced items.

In the meantime, if you think the American population only knows what a starving person looks like because they've seen one on TV, that tells me that you're probably an individual who has never seen true poverty, never lived in or worked in a really bad neighborhood, and never witnessed the deterioration of individuals addicted to some of the harder drugs used in inner cities. There are areas where you could look out your window at night and begin to believe that maybe zombies aren't too far-fetched of an idea. And these problems are, in part, a result of the existence and administration of the very benefits programs you're touting.

You should learn a bit about how people on welfare live before you go preaching the greatness of that system. When you advocate for that, you're basically advocating to shoot financial heroin into the veins of urban populations, or break their legs like the female lead in Stephen King's Misery.

I'll take my bootstraps over your leg up any day.

[–]Clockwork_Prophecy-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You make it very clear that your knowledge is focused only on short spans of history, either due to the choice to ignore, or the ignorance of, other times.

Uh, no. starvation was a facet of life in the U.S. for it's entire history up to the establishment of those programs. It was worse in some times than others because famines, droughts, and other disasters took their toll of lives. The U.S. still has famines and droughts of course, they just don't cost any lives anymore.

In the meantime, if you think the American population only knows what a starving person looks like because they've seen one on TV, that tells me that you're probably an individual who has never seen true poverty, never lived in or worked in a really bad neighborhood

I'm from St. Louis. So yeah, I have. I've been in the city that won most violent in the U.S. many years in a row. And I wouldn't believe for a damn minute that anyone who buys into the libertarian fantasy would know what poverty really means. No one has starved to death in the U.S. in years who hasn't been either victimized by someone else (neglectful parent) or certifiably insane.

You should learn a bit about how people on welfare live before you go preaching the greatness of that system.

Not that difficult since I knew many of them. Enough of them to know that this talk of a "parasite class" is a bunch of bullshit. I know plenty of people who started on welfare and left it to go live successful lives. If you were at all educated about what you were speaking about, you'd know that the welfare queen was a statistical anomoly.

I'll take my bootstraps over your leg up any day.

No actually, you won't. You'll whine, smirk and pontificate about this joke of a political philosophy, but at the end of the day, you'll stay right here in this first-world nation and enjoy the fruits of a strong social safety net. You'll live out the rest of your life lecturing from the backs of people who built a better society against your wailing objections.

Talk about a parasite class.

[–]oneiorosgrip3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Uh, no. starvation was a facet of life in the U.S. for it's entire history up to the establishment of those programs. It was worse in some times than others because famines, droughts, and other disasters took their toll of lives. The U.S. still has famines and droughts of course, they just don't cost any lives anymore.

This is a false statement. There are homeless in the U.S. who starve, unassisted by the programs you promote. Some of them live in my neighborhood, and some near my places of work. I drove one woman "home" last weekend - it entailed going from friend's residence to friend's residence until she found someone who was at home. "Home" for the night happened to be in a section of town where most people won't get out of their cars at night. And I didn't do it because I'm some kind of a super individual - I did it because it was going to be unusually cold that night. If she'd have stayed outdoors, she'd have been at risk for hypothermia.

When there are famines, droughts, or even inclimate weather, those whose characteristics prevent them access to shelters do die - the die of exposure, or of diseases, of injuries, and sometimes starvation.

I'm from St. Louis. So yeah, I have. I've been in the city that won most violent in the U.S. many years in a row. And I wouldn't believe for a damn minute that anyone who buys into the libertarian fantasy would know what poverty really means.

Congratulations. That means what I've described above happened right in your hometown, and you apparently missed it.

I've lived in 2 small towns and 2 cities, worked in multiple communities, and slept all over Ohio, in parts of Indiana, Kentucky, and Michigan, including Detroit. I've been destitute, lived in someone else's home on someone else's good graces, lived in drug-infested neigborhoods, had addicts come into my home in the middle of the night, had my life threatened by more than one dealer. You sound like someone who is more interested in projecting your opinions than in knowing the individual to whom you're talking.

No one has starved to death in the U.S. in years who hasn't been either victimized by someone else (neglectful parent) or certifiably insane.

This is also untrue. The safety net you promote denies assistance segments of the population who are impoverished due to government confiscation of their income. There are individuals who are homeless and starving because the same government who garnishes so much from their wages they haven't enough left to live on tells them they make too much to collect any assistance, based on counting the confiscated money.

Not that difficult since I knew many of them. Enough of them to know that this talk of a "parasite class" is a bunch of bullshit. I know plenty of people who started on welfare and left it to go live successful lives. If you were at all educated about what you were speaking about, you'd know that the welfare queen was a statistical anomoly.

Trying to limit the concept I've referenced to that which fits the term "welfare queen" and apply a political label to it probably makes you feel clever and successful, but it doesn't actually work. There are many, many ways of abusing the welfare system that do not involve living the "welfare queen" lifestyle.

As I mentioned before, I've been destitute. I listened to people who told me I had to have medical insurance because of my child. I applied for, and was approved for medicaid, and maintained eligibility and registry for it for a few years, on and off. I've also seen others through the system. In the welfare office that is local to the community where I now live, there is more bling on the patrons there than there is at the local mall, and better shoes, phones, and teeth, too. My local welfare office supports both the unwilling poor, and the willing poor, who game the system for every penny they can get, and throw temper tantrums when there is any complication or disruption in the service they receive. There are also welfare queens, but the majority of welfare abusers aren't that obvious.

I've worked with people who fought to keep their work hours just low enough to continue to collect food stamps and qualify for other welfare services. I've listened to case workers tell single mothers how to structure their income to avoid losing their benefits, and how to get out of having to agree to work. I've also interacted a lot with the queen type, who collects every type of benefit the system has to offer, and spends a few hundred a month in cash on scratch off lottery at the neighborhood convenience store.

No actually, you won't. You'll whine, smirk and pontificate about this joke of a political philosophy, but at the end of the day, you'll stay right here in this first-world nation and enjoy the fruits of a strong social safety net. You'll live out the rest of your life lecturing from the backs of people who built a better society against your wailing objections.

Again, you display the problem of making unfounded assumptions. I've worked since I was 15 years old. For most of my adult life, I've had at least two jobs. For half of it, I've had at least three. At one short point, I had 4. All of that, and a couple of period of being completely unemployed, including a stint of being temporarily disabled (without disability insurance) following a car accident.
I've supported myself for most of my adult life. I've supported my family for most of my marriage, because my husband's ex confiscated most of his income that didn't go to taxes. Not only did she get most of his, but also part of mine, because the government didn't count coersively taking my annual tax refund for her as making me pay her support.

Prior to the car accident, I lived in a similar situation with an ex, doing the same thing I've done with my family's situation; when the going got tough, I worked more and harder.

Your idiocy is palpable. You're ruled by your ideology, denying people's capabilities and tendencies, applying labels instead of logic, and spouting rhetoric in place of reality. It is people like you who facilitate the dysfunction in our system, preferring to condone the abuse rather than admit that the policies of your favored politicians (whether left or right) are sinking the nation's economy.

Talk about a parasite class.

What - now you want to discuss Capitol Hill?

[–]Clockwork_Prophecy-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is a false statement. There are homeless in the U.S. who starve, unassisted by the programs you promote.

Yes, because there is still a ton of work to do when it comes to creating a more equitable society. The difference between you and me is I'm actually trying to make it happen while you're indulging in a fantasy.

As I mentioned before, I've been destitute. I listened to people who told me I had to have medical insurance because of my child. I applied for, and was approved for medicaid, and maintained eligibility and registry for it for a few years, on and off. I've also seen others through the system.

Oh what a fucking surprise. Someone who took advantage of the system when they needed it, but is convinced that everyone else who needs it is a greasy freeloader because you don't know anything about their circumstances. You sure as hell can make inferences depending on what they're wearing though, can't you?

Again, you display the problem of making unfounded assumptions. I've worked since I was 15 years old. For most of my adult life, I've had at least two jobs. For half of it, I've had at least three. At one short point, I had 4. All of that, and a couple of period of being completely unemployed, including a stint of being temporarily disabled (without disability insurance) following a car accident.

I'm not making any assumptions. Congratulations on working hard to get what you wanted in life. Lots of people do, including many people who are happy to have a social safety net in place just in case anything happens to them. I'm sorry your personal experiences made you bitter and paranoid instead of confident and fulfilled.

Your idiocy is palpable. You're ruled by your ideology, denying people's capabilities and tendencies, applying labels instead of logic, and spouting rhetoric in place of reality.

Projection much? Does it seriously escape you that every country in the world you could actually visit without a reasonable expectation of being shot or kidnapped is a social democracy? There is no dark tower of evil sorcerers out there forcing countries to abandon or skip over the "joys" of libertarianism. It doesn't work, and nobody wants it.

It is people like you who facilitate the dysfunction in our system, preferring to condone the abuse rather than admit that the policies of your favored politicians (whether left or right) are sinking the nation's economy.

You actually think I'm happy with the social order in the U.S.? I'm not. There are centuries left of work to do to get the society that I would like to see. Along the way, it will inevitably be hampered by greed and corruption.

Despite that, things have gotten better. We keep moving forward and we take the small victories where we can. Your problem is that you think you are actually offering a solution, when all you're advocating is tearing down the improving solutions to get back to the original problems we had in the first place.

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, because there is still a ton of work to do when it comes to creating a more equitable society.

In other words, you're looking at "Hey, this isn't working" and coming up with the response "well, then, we should do it bigger and more, and that will fix the problem." The difference between you and me is that you're hung up on your ideas - I deal in the reality that your idealism doesn't address.

Oh what a fucking surprise. Someone who took advantage of the system when they needed it, but is convinced that everyone else who needs it is a greasy freeloader because you don't know anything about their circumstances.

Typical - when faced with a contradiction of your point of view, rather than admit that you were mistaken in your assessment, you turn to shaming tactics. (Those don't work, btw.) Funny how you advocate for those systems until you're dealing with someone who has seen the flaws in them from the inside, and is willing to point them out instead of subscribe to the system you promote. Then, suddenly it's 'taking advantage.' So basically, what you've argued so far is that nobody who hasn't been impoverished can have a valid perspective on the topic, but those who have aren't allowed to disagree with you. Your position is completely irrational.

I'm not making any assumptions. Congratulations on working hard to get what you wanted in life. Lots of people do, including many people who are happy to have a social safety net in place just in case anything happens to them. I'm sorry your personal experiences made you bitter and paranoid instead of confident and fulfilled.

Except you did - you labeled me spoiled, privileged, and unaware, without knowing anything about my life experiences. And bitter? That's rich, coming from the most unmeritously judgmental individual I've debated in weeks. I'm not the one calling the working class and the producers within society "parasites" in support of a welfare-positive perspective. Your resentment of the successful, clearly stated in your previous posts, shows this part of your comment to be the projection that it is. Also, way to put on display the way the American political left treats 'subjects' who go off the reservation. I think it's vital that attitude be seen by others.

Does it seriously escape you that every country in the world you could actually visit without a reasonable expectation of being shot or kidnapped is a social democracy?

This is off topic, subjective, and irrelevant to the discussion.

There is no dark tower of evil sorcerers out there forcing countries to abandon or skip over the "joys" of libertarianism.

This is a straw-man argument, and an effort to impose a political label on points made, rather than discuss the points themselves. This doesn't contradict the point to which it replies - that you are an ideologue. Instead, it supports it.

It doesn't work, and nobody wants it.

This is an unsupported generalization.

You actually think I'm happy with the social order in the U.S.? I'm not. There are centuries left of work to do to get the society that I would like to see.

Again you go with "Oh, this isn't working? Let's do it bigger, and more!"

Along the way, it will inevitably be hampered by greed and corruption.

Greed and corruption are the defining features of the welfare state, from the top of it to the bottom.

Despite that, things have gotten better.

Again, you make an unsupported statement, one that doesn't even make sense considering the economic disaster of the last 20 years, the increase in people embracing the conditions which lead to poverty, the current state of economic recession, and the looming specter of federal debt. Your head-in-the-sand, resentful-of-independence attitude is fundamentally characteristic of 'well-meaning' liberals, who would rather impose an ideological viewpoint on the poor and disadvantaged than actually effect positive change. Your problem is that you'd prefer to decide the solution is what fits your political perspective, rather than what actually helps people escape circumstances of poverty. It's more important to you to feel like your ideology is being served than to be genuinely effective. As long as attitudes like yours prevail, our society will continue its downward spiral unabated.

[–]Clockwork_Prophecy-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In other words, you're looking at "Hey, this isn't working" and coming up with the response "well, then, we should do it bigger and more, and that will fix the problem." The difference between you and me is that you're hung up on your ideas - I deal in the reality that your idealism doesn't address.

If you are convinced that the U.S. is not a safer, wealthier, and more equitable place now than it was in the last two centuries, you have no right to be lecturing anyone about "reality". It is apparently not something you are well-versed in.

And you are the one here who is dealing only in ideals, but I get to that point farther down.

Typical - when faced with a contradiction of your point of view, rather than admit that you were mistaken in your assessment

Actually, it's a pretty damn common theme in the libertarians I've argued with to be products of welfare at some time in their lives. Of course, like you, they always have excuses as to why they are nothing like what they perceive as the dirty takers. Bringing up the "bling" was particularly telling, in your case.

Except you did - you labeled me spoiled, privileged, and unaware, without knowing anything about my life experiences.

It was a pretty safe assumption. I don't really care if people come from poverty and disagree with me. In fact, I can see where they're coming from if they are possessive about their success after they worked so much harder than most people to get it.

I feel happy for them, I really do. I think they deserve respect, but just because they had to climb the ladder doesn't suddenly mean that putting in an escalator is unfair. A lot of people will try in their lives, some will try so hard it will break them before they turn 40, and the vast majority of them will never get anything out of it but a short miserable life. I don't want that for them, I want something better.

I'm not the one calling the working class and the producers within society "parasites"

Yeah, that clearly was not an argument. It was a rhetorical flourish at the end of a point. I like working, I like accomplishment, and so does everyone else I know. Not being afraid that I'll be bankrupted by an injury or starve to death if I lose my home doesn't make me lazier. Security just make it easier to pursue your dreams.

This is off topic, subjective, and irrelevant to the discussion.

It's about as on-topic as it could possibly be if we think we are discussing the same thing. As in, which system results in better equity for more people. Naturally, I didn't address your personal insults as argument, I just latched onto your point about ideology.

I was pointing out that ideology is, quite literally, all you've got. My side has a set of working models that includes every first-world nation on the earth. If there is a nation that statistically falls under the wealthiest, lowest levels of poverty (hint, hint) or even happiest per capita, it's a nation that takes my side in this argument.

Of course, there are plenty of nations where people are completely unrestrained by government, but they'll never be used as examples by people like you. I guess it's hard to live out that stoic libertarian existence when your back yard is the headquarters of the Warlord-of-the-Month.

That's rich, coming from the most unmeritously judgmental individual I've debated in weeks.

The funniest thing here is that you've somehow managed to climb up on a high horse throughout this discussion. Why don't you go back and read your own posts? You're slinging personal insults left and rights, leaving every declaration unsupported by any reference, and substituting personal analogies for evidence.

Those things in themselves really don't bother me, since internet debates are in an identical class to drunken party debates and entertainment is the only way to win. However, you now seem convinced that you're engaging in some kind of high rhetoric, when your tone and your approach is exactly identical to mine.

Kind of like how you're suddenly concerned about strawmen and unsupported generalizations when your final paragraph is basically a patchwork quilt of them.

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you are convinced that the U.S. is not a safer, wealthier, and more equitable place now than it was in the last two centuries, you have no right to be lecturing anyone about "reality". It is apparently not something you are well-versed in.

You don't read the news much, do you?

Actually, it's a pretty damn common theme in the libertarians I've argued with to be products of welfare at some time in their lives. Of course, like you, they always have excuses as to why they are nothing like what they perceive as the dirty takers. Bringing up the "bling" was particularly telling, in your case.

This shows that you cannot argue without relegating concepts to labels for the purpose of rejecting them without addressing the concepts themselves - something you've been doing throughout this entire discussion.

It was a pretty safe assumption.

Except, that, once again, it turned out to be incorrect.

I don't really care if people come from poverty and disagree with me. In fact, I can see where they're coming from if they are possessive about their success after they worked so much harder than most people to get it.

This explains your entire attitude - you live under the assumption that the majority of successful people did nothing to achieve their success. It explains why, when confronted with someone who doesn't live under that assumption, you don't know how to address an argument without labels and ideological rhetoric.

I feel happy for them, I really do. I think they deserve respect, but just because they had to climb the ladder doesn't suddenly mean that putting in an escalator is unfair. A lot of people will try in their lives, some will try so hard it will break them before they turn 40, and the vast majority of them will never get anything out of it but a short miserable life. I don't want that for them, I want something better.

Then why are you advocating the ideology that keeps them trapped in a state perpetual dependence on others? That is probably the most cruel aspect of the American left - you guys are as bigoted and hypocritical about money as the American right is about sex, treating association with it as something dirty, viewing those who have it as atomically corrupt, taking a judgmental attitude toward those whose relationship to it doesn't conform to your personal tastes, pushing for laws to penalize those who acquire more than you, and trying to regulate everything people do with it once they have it.

Yeah, that clearly was not an argument. It was a rhetorical flourish at the end of a point.

Yeah - I'll be right back. I left my bullshit wadin' boots in the car.

I like working, I like accomplishment, and so does everyone else I know. Not being afraid that I'll be bankrupted by an injury or starve to death if I lose my home doesn't make me lazier. Security just make it easier to pursue your dreams.

If you think social services = security, you are sadly mistaken. This makes me wonder if you've ever even once tried depending on any aspect of the welfare system for anything.

It's about as on-topic as it could possibly be if we think we are discussing the same thing. As in, which system results in better equity for more people. Naturally, I didn't address your personal insults as argument, I just latched onto your point about ideology.

Boy, I'm glad I went out for those boots. That's a pretty deep pile, right there.

Your determination to relegate concepts to the realm of labels you can dismiss rather than addressing the concepts themselves is not excused by offering to move the goalposts from the topic under discussion.

I was pointing out that ideology is, quite literally, all you've got. My side has a set of working models that includes every first-world nation on the earth.

Every first world nation on earth has seen economic turmoil and in some cases, collapse under the models they're using now. They've come up against a point where irresponsible policy has led to financial crisis. The EU is in trouble, maybe more so than the U.S.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/01/11/france-could-be-next-european-economic-disaster

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9276093/British-economy-may-never-quite-recover-from-a-severe-Euro-collapse.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/business/economy/seen-from-greece-great-depression-data-looks-good.html?_r=0

http://investmentwatchblog.com/economic-disaster-european-crisis-thats-far-bigger-than-cyprus-or-italy-french-irish-spanish-german-march-pmi-all-came-in-worse-than-expected-unemployed-hits-the-highest-level-in-history-weal/

http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/05/spains-crisis-sparks-another-revolution/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8880410/Italys-debt-crisis-doomed-by-corruption-bloated-bureaucracy-and-poor-productivity.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/irelands-crisis-explained/article1315217/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC2OuM9x2SE

The one exception?

Germany's success shows up the union-heavy U.S. system

Nations have collapsed under similar models in the past... and as long as there are people who suffer from the delusion that heavy-handed government manipulation of a nation's economy works, there will continue to be nations trying, buying, riding on, and then crashing under your "working" model, created not because it was a way to solve the problems faced by the world's downtrodden, but because it was a way to return to an environment of economic control by a government power, rather than an environment of economic prosperity. (Have a link, since you feel compelled to go off topic - read a little history. Frankly, I'd recommend the whole book - it really gives a great explanation of the problem with arrogance such as yours.)

Of course, there are plenty of nations where people are completely unrestrained by government, but they'll never be used as examples by people like you. I guess it's hard to live out that stoic libertarian existence when your back yard is the headquarters of the Warlord-of-the-Month.

Again, you're off-topic, spouting hyperbole, and still relying on labels.

The funniest thing here is that you've somehow managed to climb up on a high horse throughout this discussion. Why don't you go back and read your own posts? You're slinging personal insults left and rights, leaving every declaration unsupported by any reference, and substituting personal analogies for evidence.

You haven't offered me anything but labels, rhetoric, and straw-men. You haven't even offered any evidence, have failed miserably in your assumptions about me, have failed to address the actual content of my statements, and have failed to support your own claims with anything but vitriol and posturing... and here, instead of dealing with the discussion at hand, you resort to whining. How childish are you going to get during this discussion?

[–]Clockwork_Prophecy-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You don't read the news much, do you?

Man, complaining about logical fallacies, and now you open up with one. His formal paper is behind a pay wall, but his TED lecture covers the major points. Human kind is less violent now that it ever was.

Gallup does some great work on national crime in the U.S. The third graph will show you that violent crime is currently in the middle of a free fall that began almost 40 years ago. However, like you, many people actually think that crime has gone up. I think the 24-hour news cycle is probably the cause of that.

Also, Even in the midst of a "depression", the dow is now near it's world record high.

This shows that you cannot argue without relegating concepts to labels for the purpose of rejecting them without addressing the concepts themselves

You weren't even making an argument there. Unless you were counting either your analogy or your personal attack as an argument. I'm not going to bother defending myself from something that's a fallacy in the first place, and I already told you I'm ignoring your personal attacks. I answered rhetoric with rhetoric.

This explains your entire attitude - you live under the assumption that the majority of successful people did nothing to achieve their success.

Wow! You want to talk about strawmen? Well, stick this one in your field and keep your whole harvest. I said people who came from poverty will have to work harder than most people if they want success. And they will, if they live in an areas with under-served schools, low economic opportunities, and no capital.

I did NOT say that people who didn't come from poverty didn't work for their success. Of course, I think you knew that before you started gathering the straw.

Then why are you advocating the ideology that keeps them trapped in a state perpetual dependence on others?

I feel this paper explains my position pretty well. Poverty itself and not the welfare created to address it is what keeps people down. It breeds a culture of hopelessness and fatality. It limits options and makes exit a more difficult process.

treating association with it as something dirty, viewing those who have it as atomically corrupt, taking a judgmental attitude toward those whose relationship to it doesn't conform to your personal tastes, pushing for laws to penalize those who acquire more than you, and trying to regulate everything people do with it once they have it.

More strawmen? C'mon there's already barely enough room for my crops!

Yeah - I'll be right back. I left my bullshit wadin' boots in the car.

I going to post what I wrote again because your scroll button is obviously broken.

No actually, you won't. You'll whine, smirk and pontificate about this joke of a political philosophy, but at the end of the day, you'll stay right here in this first-world nation and enjoy the fruits of a strong social safety net. You'll live out the rest of your life lecturing from the backs of people who built a better society against your wailing objections. Talk about a parasite class.

It's pretty damn obvious that I wasn't even talking about 'producers" (zomg you used another strawman) I was talking about people who advocate an end to social policy derived from taxation. That view is not held in a majority at any economic class, though I can't for the life of me define in what range you consider 'producers' to begin and end.

If you think social services = security, you are sadly mistaken. This makes me wonder if you've ever even once tried depending on any aspect of the welfare system for anything.

Food stamps got us through one of the worst periods in my childhood and out the other side. I don't know how you feel about medicare, social security and federal employee pensions, but several elderly members of my family also rely on that after a long life of "producing".

Your determination to relegate concepts to the realm of labels you can dismiss rather than addressing the concepts themselves is not excused by offering to move the goalposts from the topic under discussion.

What do you think is the topic under discussion? My opening post was about how life improved in the United States because of a strong social policy that includes welfare. You seem to be trying to argue now that I have the obligation to try and defend myself from your personal attacks about being an ideologue (that was also a strawmen btw, since we're counting now) and treat them as arguments. I don't, and I won't—unless it looks entertaining.

Every first world nation on earth has seen economic turmoil and in some cases, collapse under the models they're using now. They've come up against a point where irresponsible policy has led to financial crisis.

We're in a cycle for which he have 100 years of data to consult. We have been in these cycles since we seized control of our money supply. There is a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth now, but there is no reason to believe we won't recover from this. Of course, some regulatory controls on banking would have made this a lot less painful, but it's a little late for that now.

Again, you're off-topic

Not really. If you're going to claim that government interference creates a bad environment, it's not unreasonable to ask you to offer some evidence that limited or absent government can offer any benefits.

You haven't offered me anything but labels, rhetoric, and straw-men.

I'm beginning to become convinced that you suffer from some kind of short-term memory loss where you can't actually remember what you wrote before each new post. You have used more than your share of strawmen and labels, and your opening post is already half rhetoric. You seem to prefer analogies as your personal fallacy, but to each his own, right?

and here, instead of dealing with the discussion at hand, you resort to whining.

I'm not whining. I'm here for the entertainment because I enjoy arguing with people. I even enjoy it when people engage in the crafted rhetoric that you're slinging. I honestly think you're a strong and interesting writer. The only thing that bothers me is that you don't seem to think you're playing the same game that I am. Like, you think you're playing chess when we are both actually playing Hungry, Hungry Hippos. I thought the fact that we went 8 replies without a single link would have clued you in that this was not srs bsns.

Yet, now you seem to be actually getting mad, and that's not what I wanted out of this.

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I was hoping that, having had no time to reply to you for a day, I'd return to find a well thought out response.

I should have known better. I've argued with political ideologues before. There is never a well-thought out response... only crap like what you've written here.

Let me start by addressing the fact that you've meandered so far away from the original point - that being your argument against "people with the desire and initiative to do so have proved the "level the field" philosophy wrong, and will continue to do so, by elevating themselves without taking anything away from anybody" - that you're not even bothering to address it any more.

When you couldn't provide anything to back up the idea that people in general can't elevate themselves using their own ingenuity, determination, and hard work, you resorted to labels, moving the goalposts, generalization, and straw-men. When called on it, your answer has essentially been "I know you are, but what am I?" and "Look! More goalposts!" On a side note regarding the topic of crime - treating violent crime as the only crime worth measuring is a neat trick, but it doesn't make the point you started with, that being that people can't elevate themselves, and therefore the playing field must be leveled from the outside. I could go through and argue on the topic of how crime has changed over the last 50 years, and in particular the last 25, during which credit scamming and internet scamming has taken the place of a lot of violent means of robbery, but it wouldn't be relevant to the original point - that people don't need a heavy-handed government to improve our lives.

I gave you news from around the world about economic hardship. You can't debunk or debate, so you argue violence (not the same topic) and try to call it a win. No wonder you're using games as a metaphor to describe the discussion - you have shat all over the board and declared yourself the winner.

Citing the Dow Jones industrial average as your only evidence of economic recovery shows more ignorance than I expected. Neither the ability of your average person to elevate him(or her)self nor the overall U.S. economy is defined by this measure. It's one indicator of many which can help investors know what to do with their money, but it's not a measure of whether Jane the convenience store clerk might be able to earn extra cash by cleaning houses, or selling homemade crafts on etsy.com, or as I did, posting images online for page views. Your claim of a cycle based on one century's measure is also weak. A hundred years is a flash in the pan of human history. Of course, there is a cycle evident during that time; our population has been ping-ponging back and forth between left and right wing economic policies during the last century like the political environment was a championship tennis match, with factors affecting economic damage and economic growth changing with each new administration.
I linked you to writing which discussed more than double the time period you discussed (still a flash in the pan, but a longer one, with a broader scope of information) and you didn't even bother to read it. Get back to me when you've done your homework.

So far, the administration we have in place at the moment - the most "progressive" government of my lifetime - has killed more well-paying jobs than any other administration under which I've lived.

In my community alone, 5 different double-digit-per-hour job providing factories closed following the passage of Obama's stimulus package. Further job loss has followed the passage of Obamacare. It's been slower, because we're getting eased into that tar pit, but the effects are still the same. Many of those jobs, it is predicted, will never be replaced. Those employees, when they went back to work, went back to work for minimum wage at gas stations and grocery stores. Empty houses with aging for-sale signs litter my area. I have neighbors and family with upside-down mortgages, not because they over-borrowed, but because after they bought, their homes' values dropped significantly in the housing market created by artificial interference from the Clinton and other left-wing administrations, which essentially ordered banks to offer high-risk loans, then turned around and blamed the banks when those folks couldn't keep their heads above water any better with a housing loan than with a rent payment.

That is the economy of your playing field politics - not the elevation of the disadvantaged to the same level as the advantaged, but the dragging down of the working poor and the working middle class, and the economy with them, into the dregs of true poverty, with very little effect on the rich at all.
You think your political team acts as society's lifeguards, but all you are advocating is politics that force everyone to have to tread water, with nobody having the right to learn how to swim. You pretend that kind of attitude toward people is helpful, but in reality, you're no better than the drug dealer who lived next door to my parents, "helping" people by providing them with just the right balance between desperate need and overdose to keep them coming back to him for more.

You've offered me zip in the way of solid, quantifiable evidence to back up your original statement. You have made no rational, logical arguments - only claims and rhetoric. You've proceeded to attribute to me a political party, and you've tried to 'sell' me your political ideology, all in response to a two line statement about human ingenuity, to which you have irrationally objected. You dismiss real world experience with political labels, but all you really have had to offer in return is your own feelings on the topic. Now, after ignoring evidence contrary to your original statement and those that followed it, wandering all around topic-land like a lost child, whining about the discussion, you give me a senseless, ranting reply to a fraction of the previous comment, and seriously seem to think you've presented a superior statement. No wonder you brought up SRS - you sound just like a die-hard SRS poster, right down to having to attribute emotion to an argument just because you didn't like what was said. No, I'm not mad. I'm disgusted, maybe disappointed, but as a debater, you're really not worth the level of emotional investment that anger represents.
You have accomplished two things with your end of the discussion.

1) You've led me to question your age - not a lot, as I do know elderly who are as die-hard in their political ideology as you are, but you argue like a kid.

2) I'm considering taking seriously the friends who have been trying to talk me into joining the Libertarian party... maybe not with an eye toward actually doing so, but definitely with an eye toward the merits of their political candidates. Though I generally have avoided choosing a political party to prefer, your knee-jerk reaction to the concept of independent success and your attribution of assertions of ingenuity to the party has made it a much more attractive prospect than it was before I had this conversation with you.

[–]Clockwork_Prophecy0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Since you are not showing any tangible attempts to challenge your own thinking, and you never really did, I'm just going to leave you with a few tips that will help you out if you stick around reddit.

You will see the phrase "Big L" and "Little L" around. You are only talking about the Libertarian Party if you are capitalizing it (Notice I never did). When you are discussing the libertarian philosophy, it stays lower case. Most libertarians are not members of the Libertarian Party. Your personal philosophy, as much as you've expressed it, is libertarian.
SRS BSNS means "serious business". The phrase has 0 relation to the ShitRedditSays subreddit. Srs Bsns is a very common phrase on reddit, so I have no idea how this one went over your head.
No one will feel any obligation to provide serious evidence to you when you refuse to do the same. What you think you submitted as evidence all fell under one of three categories:
- Anecdote
- Unrelated Abstraction
- Banal attribution of specific modern policy to a irrefutably cyclic event that irrefutably predated the policies you blame it on.

Once again you have proven yourself completely blind to your own intellectual dishonesty. You have made no arguments of merit, and you didn't even bother providing sources (irrelevant to the discussion though they were) until I pointed out your blatant hypocrisy in demanding sources from me when you wouldn't use any.

Even after that, and the counting of all your strawmen (which you specifically attacked me on over and over with no hint of sensing the irony), and the demonstration of how much you were relying on anecdotes (and that whole text wall above is a doosey of them)— You STILL try talk like you think you are motherfucking Cicero addressing the senate.

If nothing else, I would just love for you to admit that you just weren't taking this seriously, because if you were—if you actually think you were providing substantive and reasoned arguments—you are someone who needs to engage in some serious introspection.

Good day, Ma'am.

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Clockwork_Prophecy-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Clockwork_Prophecy-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Clockwork_Prophecy-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kragshot2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]the_pin1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That is a good point. They do - they treat all women as if we are as handicapped in life by being female as the short person in the image is in the goal of seeing over the fence, by being short. They also act like we can't achieve, obtain, or create on our own, and must therefore take from men to get what we want. For a movement that claims to be partly about independence from men, it sure does a lot to encourage the opposite.

It's not just feminists who think this way. Replace the tall guy with a business owner, and the little girl with a welfare recipient. Replace the tall guy with a stereotypical 'privileged white guy,' and the little girl with any minority which the political left automatically considers disadvantaged. This is the reasoning used for pretty much every politically-left-wing initiated and executed "social justice" effort that has taken place in the U.S., including the social security system. (To see how it works with SS, replace the little girl with an elderly or legally disabled person, and the boxes with about sixteen young workers.)

Now, there are circumstances where individuals really can't go out and get or make their own crates - such as the disabled I mentioned above. The problem is, our system isn't limited to helping people who can't get or make their own crates. It also caters to those who won't get or make their own crates, don't want to get or make their own crates, and resent the success of anyone who does.

Catering to these folks at the expense of the tall guy (and very often, the middle guy) in real life does not end up looking entirely like the picture. Oh, the tall guy and the middle guy are definitely lowered, but the short guy doesn't necessarily end up in that much better of a position - often, his life choices end up breaking the shit out of those crates, so that where the middle guy was doing well before his crate was taken, the little guy ends up standing on a pile of tinder, and still isn't elevated enough to see over the fence. Instead of elevating the little guy, this type of social justice brings others down to his level of despair.

In the meantime, that system acts as a means of discouragement to the tall guy and the middle guy, who learn from it that there's really no use going out and getting or making crates of their own, because they're going to be taken away, and their work will have been for nothing.

And that's a huge chunk of why the American economy is where it is today. We've been punishing the crate makers, and the crate earners, while rewarding the crate enviers for not making or earning, by taking from those who do and giving it to them. We've made it less profitable to produce, less profitable to invent, less profitable to do anything which benefits society. Now we're bitching and moaning because there are less crates to go around, and of all things, most of the country can't seem to figure out why that happened.

[–]herbandmargie-6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SXcalibur18 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]agiganticpanda13 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dysgraphia_add-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]agiganticpanda2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're thinking of it just as a western culture issue. While in the west disposability of men is a big issue in terms of men's rights, in places like India and China where there is a huge disparity of infanticide towards women.

Disposability USED to be acceptable because women helped keep a population around. If you lost all of the women, you lost your culture in a generation. In a world of 7 billion, women are just as disposable as men and should be one of the major imo issues that MRAs should focus on. Women being on the front line is a good start. Although women hitting men being "no big deal" should be the next step.

Going forward, part of what will make the change of disposability is equal rights. Why would you give up the idea of being less disposable as a woman when there are still a lot of issues on women's personal safety in the world? For that to change, there are a lot of steps in terms of violence prevention regardless of gender.

[–]Demonspawn-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

in places like India and China where there is a huge disparity of infanticide towards women.

And why is that? Answer that question honestly and you'll learn far more about civilization and society than you currently do... because you're very lacking if you think the answer to that is "hatred" or "misogyny" or even "disposability of women"

In a world of 7 billion

The "one world theory" doesn't work until we have a single culture. Under multiculturalism, women are even less disposable than the population would suggest. Just ask Arifat about that.

Going forward, part of what will make the change of disposability is equal rights.

100% wrong. Equal rights without equal disposability CAUSES the problems we are facing today. More of the poison is not the cure... unless your plan is to collapse the system.

[–]agiganticpanda3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

because you're very lacking if you think the answer to that is "hatred" or "misogyny" or even "disposability of women"

It's not hated or misogyny, it's because in those cultures men are more prized than women in ways of being able to continue the family name, being able to work in a more labor intensive fashion. Women's value on the ability to produce children is overlooked for those valuable traits mostly because of how many people are in those countries. These viewpoints are often what feminists talk about when they refer to "male privilege" on an international level.

The "one world theory" doesn't work until we have a single culture

Okay then, in a country of 1 billion such as China or 300 million in America. Our population isn't going to collapse if women are treated fairly in terms of disposability.

Just ask Arifat about that.

Without any context, if you're referring to "Arifat" to mean Yasser Arafat I really don't know what you're getting at. Considering his wife wanted a divorce, and she was "not permitted" to, I'm pretty sure we're looking at a dynamic that is already fucked up.

100% wrong.

So you say I'm 100% wrong, what would you suggest in terms of equality in terms of disposability? You don't seem to be offering any examples, just assumptions of what I think to fit your view that i'm wrong.

If you had such a powerful aspect of our culture such as being seen as more valuable because of your ability to produce children, I wouldn't give that up unless I could be certain that it wouldn't then be used to marginalize me going forward.

[–]Demonspawn0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

it's because in those cultures men are more prized than women in ways of being able to continue the family name

No, it's because in these cultures male children are the "social security" for the mother after the father dies.

Okay then, in a country of 1 billion such as China or 300 million in America.

China's population is set to collapse due to the one child policy. America is a multicultural system where the segments are fighting against each other with the power of votes, and as such population matters much more.

Without any context

"The womb of the Arab woman, is my strongest weapon." Arifat won the Palestinian, war of being recognized via population.

what would you suggest in terms of equality in terms of disposability?

I don't think it can be done. You want to do something that has never been done in human history. And until it's accomplished, equality is an anti-male system. YOU are the one who wants to change to it, so YOU are the one who has to prove it can be done. Until you have a plan for equalizing disposability, pushing for equality is pushing for a system of female supremacy, whether you recognize it or not.

If you had such a powerful aspect of our culture such as being seen as more valuable because of your ability to produce children, I wouldn't give that up unless I could be certain that it wouldn't then be used to marginalize me going forward.

Exactly why disposability has to be equalized before equal rights are given.

[–]agiganticpanda1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, it's because in these cultures male children are the "social security" for the mother after the father dies.

Which is the ability to work... you don't see that in our culture do you?

China's population is set to collapse due to the one child policy.

Because of the focus on Males vs Females.

America is a multicultural system where the segments are fighting against each other with the power of votes, and as such population matters much more.

"Segments are fighting against each other"? You're making it sound like a race war.

"The womb of the Arab woman, is my strongest weapon." Arifat won the Palestinian, war of being recognized via population.

Okay, that's the context, but that value of their indisposablity comes at the price of being heavily oppressed. You're not really making a good argument.

Until you have a plan for equalizing disposability, pushing for equality is pushing for a system of female supremacy, whether you recognize it or not.

You're still not putting forth terms of what equality means in disposability. Does it mean in war? Does it mean in violence? Does it mean in dangerous jobs? Does it mean all of these things? If so, we're making progress at least in developed countries in war. In terms of violence, we obviously need to push towards that any type of violence regardless of gender is not okay. In dangerous jobs, that's honestly an issue on two fronts, more women being okay with dangerous jobs and men being LESS okay with dangerous jobs. The decision to take up such difficult jobs should be difficult for both sexes.

[–]Demonspawn-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Which is the ability to work... you don't see that in our culture do you?

Yes, we do. 50% of women college graduates drop out of the full-time work force by the 10 year mark.

"Segments are fighting against each other"? You're making it sound like a race war.

Culture war, not race war. But yes we have one.

Okay, that's the context, but that value of their indisposablity comes at the price of being heavily oppressed.

More or less oppressed than the men in the culture?

You're still not putting forth terms of what equality means in disposability.

It means equal disposability... duh? It means all the things.

It means that women who commit crimes will be punished the same as men who commit crimes. It means that women in trouble will receive the same amount of help as men in trouble. It means the idea of "it's not ok to hit a woman" will either go away or be replaced by "a person".

It means a lot of things that will never happen because of the biology behind men and women. The truth of the matter is that men are more diverse than women and are over-represented on both ends of the scale (success and failure). As such, since a society cannot carry all failures and still advance, we've had to accept the disposability of men in order to advance and be competitive in the culture vs culture conflict that is the reality of survival.

And until you can overcome those hurdles and make a plan for equal disposability between men and women, your idea of accomplishing equality starts from a false premise and is therefore doomed to failure: that failure being the female supremacy we are experiencing today.

More of the poison causing our problem is not the cure.

[–]agiganticpanda1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, we do. 50% of women college graduates drop out of the full-time work force by the 10 year mark.

To have children. This is an equality issue as well.

Culture war, not race war. But yes we have one.

In what fashion though? Is it something where they're trying to replace our culture with theirs or something less sinister?

More or less oppressed than the men in the culture?

While the men are oppressed than the men in that culture, women are oppressed on two fronts. Both by being controlled because they're indisposable and because of the lack of agency that brings. While being disposable is an issue, it comes with the ability to have agency is most cases.

that failure being the female supremacy we are experiencing today.

How long has that been exactly? While there are strides to be made in terms of men's rights I wouldn't consider females to be "supreme."

[–]Demonspawn-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

To have children. This is an equality issue as well.

And until women are reprogrammed biologically to remove hypergamy, that equality issue will remain. And you plan to resolve that how?

While being disposable is an issue, it comes with the ability to have agency is most cases.

Women aren't stupid. They'll trade agency for protection.

While there are strides to be made in terms of men's rights I wouldn't consider females to be "supreme."

Try holding women to male standards of accountability, and you'll see just how supreme they are.

What you aren't getting is that there is a huge problem with the idea of exact equality (equal in all areas of rights, responsibility, and disposability) and that problem is called reality. The reality is that men and women are biologically unequal. So instead of fucking ourselves over by creating a system that will be perpetually out of balance and constantly shifting towards greater imbalance (seeking "equality") we should instead be accepting the reality of these biological differences and using them as the base upon which we build a working system.

[–]agiganticpanda1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

During a war in a culture that oppresses women? Yeah. If I was a woman, I would too. That's why rights need to come first.

If rights come first, then there is no way to make them give up that protection. Duh. That's the exact problem we are having today!

In terms of other characteristics? I can't say that they'd be as important in other aspects of life.

In an extremely large number of physical and mental characteristics. That's what you're not getting. There are mental as well as physical differences between men and women. Within a species, the only difference better than "male or female" is "alive or dead". Being male or being female puts a huge slider on a large number of traits, hypergamy is only one of them that I've mentioned.

Since I just found it for someone else, start reading here and realize that your whole tabula rassa argument is bunk and a false premise upon which you place your "solution"... dooming it to failure.

[–]agiganticpanda0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Hypergamy isn't a "trait" it's based on our culture. Men can "marry up" as well, it's just not as common. You can explain this though inherited power structures. If it was the reverse and women made more money overall, you'd see a reversal of that, just like you have examples of that currently in our culture.

Also, regarding that article, that's more about the larger variation between males than you see in females. That you have a higher probability to see stupid men and smart men than average men and you have more "average" women. That has nothing to do with "traits" but variability of intelligence, and a theory about it is the Y chromosome being a carrier of more variation than the x chromosome. That article does nothing to improve your argument. Because it doesn't say "women are dumber" it says "Women are more likely to be average." Even so, for every 100 very smart people, 42 are going to be women.

[–]Demonspawn0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]agiganticpanda0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Exactly. It's a trait based on biology.

Culture ≠ biology.

You mean a trend isn't absolute? Who would have imagined!

So then don't talk about it like an absolute.

No, the examples we have are women seeking an even bigger provider (government) rather than the individual man.

I can't reply to a comment like this seriously.

My argument is that there are substantial, fundamental differences between the sexes that you are ignoring in order to even promote "equality" as a possibility.

Yet the "example" you provided proved nothing of the sort.

Let's just cut this short and say you think women are inferior to men not just because of our culture but as a biological fact, because you keep dancing around the issue.

While there are differences in physical and mental capability in certain aspects, when you have a difference in 58% to 42% in those who are highly intelligent, you can't just write off that 42%.

[–]Demonspawn0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Culture ≠ biology.

So I guess monkeys have the same culture that drives hypergamy and even monkey prostitution (once "money" has been accepted)?

So then don't talk about it like an absolute.

I didn't.

Trends exist.

A bigot thinks nobody is an exception.

An idiot thinks everyone is an exception.

I am neither.

You are the latter.

Let's just cut this short and say you think women are inferior to men not just because of our culture but as a biological fact

I've said nothing of the sort. Men and women are DIFFERENT. That means men are superior at some things and women are superior at others.

The problem is you want to deny reality and pretend that men and women are the same. Keep dreaming.

While there are differences in physical and mental capability in certain aspects, when you have a difference in 58% to 42% in those who are highly intelligent, you can't just write off that 42%.

How are you not understanding that as you get smarter and smarter, then the gap expands exponentially?

[–]agiganticpanda0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Calling me an idiot, trying to equate survival instincts from apes to cultures that are post survival... Still waiting for examples that are relevant.

How are you not understanding that as you get smarter and smarter, then the gap expands exponentially?

Learn how IQ tests and studies work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

You're making the assumption that the gap expands. The issue is, if there isn't data you can't state this as fact. Look at the IQ bell curve. Notice how they both end at 140? Also, IQ is not a direct determinant of how well you can do in intellectual pursuits.

Nowhere did I say that men and women aren't different, they have different inherent skills that help suit them for different tasks throughout our evolution. The difference here is that I say that in our society currently, it isn't as much of a difference as you claim it to be which you have said multiple times favors males.

Please though, keep trying to explain yourself without any kind of data. The burden of proof is on you.

[–]Demonspawn0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The burden of proof is on you.

No sir, the burden of proof is on you that men and women are the same.

Any idiot can tell that men and women are different. Women have babies, men don't. It is obvious that they are different. It is up to YOU to prove that they are similar enough that treating them equally (something not yet done in the total of human history) can be successful, when multiple examples of treating them based on sex traits leads to success and advancement... you know: the sum total of human history.

You're making the assumption that the gap expands. The issue is, if there isn't data you can't state this as fact.

Until you learn how to think for yourself rather than being spoon fed reports to do your thinking for you, I can't help you. Come back when you've learned to think.

[–]agiganticpanda0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Extra_MSG20 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]koncept613 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PumpkinDevourer2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Extra_MSG1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]7wap7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kogknight3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JillGr3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EternalArchon1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lordslag1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Trenchyjj1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LunaRosa1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Steaccy1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VideoLinkBot1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Here is a list of video links collected from comments that redditors have made in response to this submission:

Source Comment	Score	Video Link
CosmicKeys	2	Slaves of Dubai
CosmicKeys	2	Non-Deliberate Oppression
CosmicKeys	1	How Patriarchy Works: an improved definition
EternalArchon	1	Thomas Sowell - The Quest For Cosmic Justice
oneiorosgrip	1	Irish Economic Crisis Explained by Robots.

[–]estabonramirez0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JELLY__FISTER1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]estabonramirez1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ENTP0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vkob0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DoctorYucatan-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Is the point here that the most oppressed/most disadvantaged groups get everything whereas the least oppressed/most advantaged don't get anything? I mean, after a bit of inspection, I saw that the shortest person's shirt had been changed to the color purple and been given pigtails, but this was not immediately obvious. Furthermore, I believe that you are incorrect in your evaluation of feminism and equity.

The point I think you're trying to make is "The womyn get everything, the men get nothing." This is quite untrue. Let's use the status of disability as a hypothetical example here, just because it fits with the picture.

All of feminism I've been associated with has been anti-ableism. This applies to those who ability is slightly less than that of others, to those whose ability is much less than that of others. A feminist would see that Middle Person's ability is slightly less than that of Left Person, yet still denied them access to the rights Left Person enjoyed. Of course there would be reason to help Middle Person so that they were able to enjoy the game regardless of ability. The feminists would also realize that Right Person's ability was much less than that of either, and as such needed a bit more than Middle Person. This has been the case for all the feminists I've known, regardless of their gender identity or expression.

I understand that, in some respects, feminists can be a bit biased towards certain genders. However, I find your picture to be a poor example, specifically because it deals with a problem that feminists do not seem to have a gender bias towards--ability.

I find that things such as these that make such broad generalizations about movements and groups to be quite irritating, especially since there is empirical evidence to suggest otherwise. I'm not saying that feminism cannot be without problems--I hate the radical feminists more than anything--but I find that /r/mensrights always seems to devolve into /r/feminismisbad. The thing is, feminism is not a unified movement, and so many groups hold different opinions and views on things that saying feminism is bad for certain beliefs some of them have makes as much sense as saying Asia is bad because of North Korea.

However, I still acknowledge and respect your right to your views and the expression thereof. I just wanted to put in my $.02.

[–]oneiorosgrip12 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DoctorYucatan-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theozoph5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DoctorYucatan4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theozoph5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]agiganticpanda0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theozoph1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]agiganticpanda2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theozoph0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're assuming things. That I'm a "nice feminist"

No, I'm telling you how it is. I don't care what you are, who you support, or what you think of me.

I'm not tone policing anything.

Except you do. Right in the post I was responding to.

Name calling is an insult that doesn't contribute anything to the point you're trying to make.

My point is : come with a shitty attitude, be treated like a jerk. I think I get the message across.

It's about being open to ideas, not just deal with anyone's opinions and their way of framing them.

There's also a proverb about not letting your brains fall out. And some good thoughts about how to prevent idiots having the run of your place (ie. Netiquette).

But hey, if you want to talk softly to the morons defaming us, by all means be my guest. Unlike you, I don't care how you speak.

[–]agiganticpanda1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Again, tone and name calling are different. Attacking someone because they have a different opinion is a sure way to close their mind.

"If feminists would follow their own advice on taking responsibility for policing your peers, even just a tiny little bit, the NAFALT argument might have some merit. Until they make that effort, it really doesn't."

I totally agree with this point and DoctorYucatan wasn't exactly undeserving of such an attitude with his "Well, my method of operation is to go around and remind everyone that NAPALT (not all people are like that) regardless of who the people are." Ignoring the point you were making about how until mainstream feminism speaks about such viewpoints, they're supporting them with silence.

Although I guess the point I'm trying to make, is that if we're really trying to change minds of those coming into this subreddit, challenging their viewpoints in confrontational way without resorting to insults would likely bring the best results.

You can speak however you want, but saying that people should just deal with it, I don't think really helps the growth of learning. Your point was great and something I agree with, but if I didn't already agree with it, the moment I saw "...is the day when I will stop telling people like you to go peddle their concern trolling elsewhere." is the moment I'd discount your opinion and move on.

I don't know about you, but I welcome those with dissenting viewpoints because it forces me to change or be even more sure of my opinions, I don't want this place to become an echo chamber.

[–]theozoph0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]agiganticpanda1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The problem is that this argument ignores the reality of feminist activity, and feminist history.

It isn't like the part of your movement that has so egregiously encroached upon the civil rights of men is the movement's fringe. Your mainstream is where this advocacy comes from - groups like the National Organization for Women, whose lobbying efforts have led to several areas of discrimination against men in the U.S.

When you use the title feminist, and advocate for feminist ideals, that is who you're effectively supporting, regardless of your intent. This is why experienced MRAs don't take "nice" feminists seriously, especially those who try to push aside discussion on men's issues and their causes by spouting NAFALT! whenever feminist anti-male advocacy comes up.

If it really is the movement of "nice" feminists, then it's your responsibility to stand against the sexism within it. Only feminists can stop the hate within the feminist movement - and it is the responsibility of feminists to do so, not just because it's your name being tossed around, but because that is the standard to which feminism holds other groups.

[–]herbandmargie2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DoctorYucatan0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]herbandmargie2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DoctorYucatan3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EmperorFishFinger3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]herbandmargie1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CosmicKeys1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DoctorYucatan1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'd like to address one specific thing in your statement above. I'm not trying to shift discussion away from other topics, there's just one I feel I want to address right now.

Feminism is unified on the belief that patriarchy is a system that, all things considered, privileges men over women. I challenge you to find an exception.

The thing is--in certain areas of developed nations, I can understand some of the ways in which policies can be anti-male. But if we understand cultural origins and the majority of the rest of the world, we see that the patriarchy does exist. Look at Pakistan. Look at Afghanistan. Hell, look at any Muslim nation or basically anywhere east of Belgrade. Look at the entirety of Africa and tell me that, globally, the patriarchy does't exist. I don't understand why MRA's are so insistent that the patriarchy doesn't exist, and also don't understand why some MRA's don't understand that the patriarchy doesn't mean all men are bad. Indeed, a patriarchal/male-dominated system is just as bad for men, because it creates a system where genders are pitted against each other and creates stereotypes about men themselves.

Why then should feminists not agree on the existence of the patriarchy and the harm it does to everyone?

I respectfully request that you explain why you oppose the notion of a patriarchy.

[–]CosmicKeys3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

also don't understand why some MRA's don't understand that the patriarchy doesn't mean all men are bad.

Not all men, but men as a gender. If men oppressed women, I would agree that men did something bad as a gender. Like I freely admit that whites did something bad by taking and enslaving africans. TyphonBlue talks about it quite a bit. I understand your gut point though - privilege doesn't mean you're a bad person.

Indeed, a patriarchal/male-dominated system is just as bad for men

You have totally reversed your point if you mean this literally. The "patriarchy" as I said, is one that overall privileges men. Patriarchy hurts men too is a distraction from this point.

Look at the entirety of Africa and tell me that, globally, the patriarchy does't exist.

Firstly, masculinity is either inherently privileged over femininity or it isn't. Masculinity and femininity in the west differs in intensity and balance, but not in it's manifestations.

Now to answer your questions.

It is an apex fallacy to look at the women oppressed by men at the top, and ignore the men at the bottom. Right now there is a drug war being fought in Mexico with a 9:1 m:f homocide ratio, but male suffering is not gendercide in our eyes, it is seen as the suffering of all people. In Dubai, a wealthy muslim country as you asked for, has 3 million male slaves in bonded labour attempting to earn money for their family. Again, invisible - male suffering is just suffering.

Women are objectified and are not "actors" like men, so social norms mean that we need to care about their welfare more than mens to afford them a life above the disposable men, despite the fact that they are below the kings of the world. Women call out, men act to improve their state. For example - the right to vote. Men died for universal male suffrage, they had to wrestle it from a class system. Women's universal suffrage came shortly after, with little violence.

Masculinity and feminity are a balanced equation that can be upset by socio-political events like war, religion, state etc. In 1917 being a male could mean choking to excruciating death on mustard gas in a muddy trench. Women in the west have a better life than women in the east because men fought bloody battles to put the west on top.

So yes, as I said in my original post there are some here who think feminism is tipping the scales in the other direction in the west. Many would agree that some places in the east is unbalanced too, because of rapid oil wealth has provided more masculine wealth. Just like history tells us, women will non-violently protest and society will change. They are one step behind men, but do not pay the same risk for being first.

[–]DoctorYucatan1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

About you, I can say this: I am appreciative of the time you took to think about your post, formulate your argument and deliver it calmly and without the anger and vitriol that many MRA's usually employ. For that you have my respect.

However, there are points of your argument I disagree with, especially the argument of male deaths due to war or slavery, etc. Who historically has fought wars? Which gender? Men. Who have been the majority of authority figures ruling over nations? Men. Who have been hailed as 'better' and 'naturally superior' over women for thousands of years? Men. What you're saying is, at least in my interpretation "men are at a greater risk of death or harm than women." However, consider--who are the majority of the people driving these things that result in male deaths? Other males. That's one of the reasons why patriarchy and male-domination is bad for men.

[–]CosmicKeys2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes that is a rebuttal that is commonly made, rephrasing it another way: The suffering of men does not matter because it is caused by other men.

It does matter.

It matters because even if males are self destructive, that means patriarchy is a system that is designed for men to kill each other for societal gain. That is not privilege for men.

It matters because suffering is not simply in conflict with other men, but in conflict with nature. And when it is in conflict with other men, it is for resources that women benefit from. The reason we are here and not Neanderthals is because male hominids wiped out their species. Or take for example Inuits. In order to gather food and feed their families, they had to endanger themselves and go hunting seal and whale. They had to be obligated to supply women with the result of their work, and the patriarchal privilege the male leaders had were a result of that. As many women voted for George Bush as men in 2004, was he not a warmonger?

Did you know early feminists and suffragettes were responsible for a campaign shaming men for not signing up for the WWI draft?

A greedy society that accepts violence as a means to resources is an oppressive one, not a masculine one. If women refused the spoils of male suffering, there would be no war.

Who have been hailed as 'better' and 'naturally superior' over women for thousands of years? Men.

Women have always been perceived as more moral, kind, nurturing, pure, virtuous, sacred, valuable, and most of all, vulnerable. Women embrace their own victim narrative because

If you can stomach JohnTheOther's smugness, he has a short video that is actually not bad in presenting the other side here.

[–]DoctorYucatan1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not saying it doesn't matter--all human suffering should be eradicated. If my remarks seemed as if I was insensitive to the suffering itself, I apologize. No one should be subject to a cruel fate like that.

My main point is that males have held the effective power in almost every society since the beginning of human civilization. But I'm cognizant that this isn't all males--it's select males, elite males. Males in power. Females gain very few opportunities to access that power, on the basis that they are women.

Women have always been perceived as more moral, kind, nurturing, pure, virtuous, sacred, valuable, and most of all, vulnerable.

While parts of this are true, there are many cultures and societies where we can see that this is not entirely true. Purity and sacredness do not accurately sum up the way say, women in feudal China were treated. Or how women have been treated under the less-respectable periods of Islam. Or how women were treated in the Mongol Khanates. I do not believe men are bad. I do, however, recognize that which has been historically true and that which, in the form of deleterious and harmful cultural attitudes and mindsets, carried through to the present day and negatively affected our society. And a lot of that has to do with the patriarchy our species has a) lived with for thousands of years and b) no longer has to live with, which would benefit everybody.

[–]CosmicKeys1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

My main point is that males have held the effective power in almost every society since the beginning of human civilization.

Except it's both not true power, and not for the benefit of men as a gender. Framing social positions as power the ultimate prize in life is a way of framing masculinity as success, and men as privileged. This is part of how men are made to serve others, the carrot on the stick is the respect gained from servitude. It is the title of chief after many years of dangerous whales hunting for the tribe.

Power is what white slave owners had, not only did they make systematic decisions, but they enjoyed the fruits of the slaves own labour and no obligation to give them anything back. Money in your pocket is not power if you owe someone that money. Studies show that men have almost no in group gender preference in comparison to women, they do not favour men when they are in power.

What you're missing is risk. The men end up on the bottom because they failed in the gamble of masculinity. You say that women few opportunities to access that power, which is very true. But you also forget they had no obligation to risk themselves in any way for society, and certainly not for men, they were valuable just for existing. It's the glass floor. This is part of the gender problem the MRM tries to tackle that feminism won't - if women don't feel equal obligations to succeed that men do, they will never outdo them, they will never systematically achieve equality because they have an easy fallback.

While parts of this are true, there are many cultures and societies where we can see that this is not entirely true.

I would say the same thing about your statement. Societies and cultures are not oblivious to the power of women. "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned".

Patriarchy is no longer needed because in the modern world women can rightfully take on the obligations and success that men have, and men no longer should feel obligated to be the sacrificed by default. Will your girlfriend (assuming you're male) instinctively take the bullet for you? Or like the 3 that died in the Aurora shootings, will you feel obligation to die protecting her?

[–]whitehat511-7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Title	This is why we need MRM
Author	Bukkake_Monster
Upvotes	604
Comments	113
Date	April 8, 2013 7:20 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/1bwli9/this-is-why-we-need-mrm/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/this-is-why-we-need-mrm.1610041 https://theredarchive.com/post/1610041

Comments