Philosophy Now Forum

Duncan, it's not complicated.

Man wants pussy.

Woman has pussy.

Man will dance hard and fast to get Woman to give him access to pussy (Man wants pussy so damn bad he'll allow himself to be castrated [figuratively] becoming the male).

Woman is disenchanted by the male.

The male, misunderstanding, doubles-down (self-denigrates), expecting to win Woman's attention (and pussy); instead the male is berated and dismissed.

So: the knot of sexist logic is Man's fault for lettin' himself get led round like a dog in heat and givin' the bitch what she claims she wants (instead of what she actually needs).

See here viewtopic.php?f=9&t=24281&p=360812#p360812 for an example of how the knot becomes Gordian.

-----

In short: men are brutes, women need men to be brutes, women say otherwise, men listen to women's babble instead of their own instincts and neuter themselves, women reject the neuters, the neuters scratch at the space where thir nuts were and wonder, 'What the fuck just happened?'.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 3:48 pmInteresting how we've gone from this:

Strays are pretty much all bobcats where I live. What, can bobcats not be strays? If not, I think you still know exactly what I meant and you're just being pedantic.

My cat is already huge, but he's not fully grown. If you wanted me to say that there were intentional exaggerations in my story, than I thought that was pretty obvious. Clearly, my cat isn't quite the size of a panther, and something that has less pressure than a paintball gun wouldn't have given another cat a 'gaping' wound.

So you started feeding a stray cat, and that attracted another stray cat, which resulted in territorial fights -- all very natural and understandable -- and then when things got ugly, you "didn't hesitate for one second" to shoot one of them in the face.

That wasn't what I said. I said I didn't hesitate for one second to consider that this was 'another cat'. The particular point to that being I didn't see them as variables that fit into an equation about political activism. It's a point about the 'incentive'. Do you not see a difference between that, and what you just said?

Yes, I get it: It never occurred to you to consider more of the elements involved and how they might unfold, so that such a situation could be avoided.

I fully anticipated that people were going to tell me that such a situation could have been prevented. I was seriously opening myself up for criticism with such a personal example. More specifically, I figured that people were going to attack parts of my story that aren't actually relevant to the exact reason why I brought it up - but I guess that's what a guy gets for opening up and being vulnerable about something personal?

I could have given any scenario, and you could have made the accusation that there was a series of alternate choices which could have prevented the scenario, altogether. People rarely want to put themselves in the shoes of an uncomfortable situation, so they usually devise a way that makes it different, but guess why that's totally bad for discussion? I suppose this is why asking the other person to assume things for the sake of an argument is such a common practice in debate, so I guess that's what I'll ask you now; Assuming you were in my exact situation, what would you have done? Would you let the bigger cat kill your pet, or use the utility that was available to you to prevent it from doing that? If you think there's a third option, that's fine, too. I doubt you'll answer this question now, anyway.

Guess what, though? You don't even need to agree with the exact choice I made, in order to agree with the way I handled the situation. It might help you understand my point if you do, but you don't need to. This crazy situation is an exaggerated application of living through a momentary disregard for any sort of politicized thinking. It might have to be the case that you disagree with me until you find yourself in a similar situation.

And then when you were faced with the fallout, a gun was your immediate answer.

The 'immediate answer' was protecting something I loved. Again, this is an attempt by you to manipulate my actual intentions. It's a 'gun' that wouldn't have done anything except harm the cat in question enough to scare it away from killing my own cat.

I do have experience with such things... and have been face-to-face with a cougar, as well as a large stray dog who was a threat to my livestock. No shots were fired, and no one was killed. I also feed stray animals at times, which I recognize could pose a threat to my resident animals -- so I take measures to prevent issues and keep everyone safe. And if there is a scuffle... I don't kill the "others".

I didn't kill any thing else either...But wait a second, here - what sort of livestock do you have?

Are you unaware of the qualities of compassion and selflessness? Not everyone cares "more" about what is important to themselves all the time -- people can care "more" about others because their hearts and minds are that broad. So don't try to drag me into your limited single-answer reality.

I think it's necessarily true in the way that I meant; If you don't care more about what is more important to you, than that something is not actually more important to you. Even when we think we are putting aside our own desires for something, that is a hyper-active consideration which merely changes what we desire.

But that's going off on a bit of a tangent; Caring about what is important to you and 'compassion' is not mutually exclusive, you should absolutely have more compassion to those that you care more about. If temporarily ignoring your political excursions never comes along with that compassion, then you probably don't care about that person very much.

Good try... but ridiculous. Humans have the ability to think more broadly (or at least they should unless they have a mental disorder), and what creates toxicity is what they do with their ability.

Oh, I don't believe you're doing this intentionally, but that is the result of your defense; You end up in a situation where the strong lived because it knew how to hunt the weak. You can attempt to divert the conversation away from that by saying that it never should have happened in the first place, but you're not taking a side against that principle in the situation that did occur. In fact, you say it's all very natural and understandable as a sort of antecedent in blaming me for what I did against it. It does sound like there's some level of you which supports this evolutionary principle, but hopefully you can really just begin to realize that what I'm saying is more nuanced than the blanket you were trying to throw it under.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:15 pmIn short: men are brutes, women need men to be brutes, women say otherwise, men listen to women's babble instead of their own instincts and neuter themselves, women reject the neuters, the neuters scratch at the space where thir nuts were and wonder, 'What the fuck just happened?'.

Yes indeed. Every single man who ever lived only cared about pussy and every women who ever lived only ever wanted to give her pussy to a brute.

Oops, I forgot a word - every single "moronic" man and every "moronic" woman. Gotta watch those little typing errors or you can give the wrong impression ....

Skip wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 5:02 pmNot all that far. You called me a loser and I concur. People are jailed for siding with a disenfranchised minority (I knew several who were arrested for voter-registration in black communities) and for disagreeing with government policy, people are regularly maced, kicked and thrown in jail. Also for being the children of parents who flee from unspeakable conditions, created and fostered by the very nation that's keeping them out.

Well, people can go to jail for a whole lot less, as well. People can in fact go to jail for going against a disenfranchised minority, clearly - so I just found it to be a weird statement to make. I don't know, I don't really care, I guess.

No. You've made it about me.

I can't really make the judgement for you, because I don't know you. You say you don't separate politics from your friends or family, but what I have been getting at is it's often done unintentionally. There are plenty of families who still love their racist uncles, plenty of pro-lifers who have had a close friend have an abortion - most people are just frankly mature enough to be able to make a divide there. Doesn't even need to be due to some hyper-active consideration, because usually I think it's not.

I can't see into your intentions, and I can't even see what you've done in life, so that's why I can't say for sure. You say you apply your activism within every cranny of your life, but the above is why I don't know if that's actually true.

Skip wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 5:02 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 4:53 am Sometimes, you need to do something horrible to one cat in order to protect another cat.

No, you do not. We host up to a dozen feral cats at any given time, and I've had to resort to the garden hose to break up fights; once I had to trap an aggeressive tom and isolate him. I have not had to kill one, but if it comes to that, it comes.

You don't ever need to hurt one thing in order to save another? You're free to disagree with my own actions, but it shouldn't have lead you to believe that.

What I do not condone is torture. In any circumstances.

If you're trying to impute that onto what I did and intended to do, I think you're just being intellectually dishonest.

This is odd.
I specifically said I do not regard persons as just part of a category or group.

But you don't disregard that either; I guess I misspoke, because it is possible that you don't just see a friend as a member of a category - you may well both see them as their own individual, and as an individual in a group that you have an ideology about. The problem to that is that when both of those things are accepted, you really only act on the latter, because the benefit I'm talking about is suppose to be about having a disregard for your politics.

This has been my contention all along regarding Duncan Butlin's attempt to foment war between men and women, and why I condemn his hostility toward half the human population as if they all fit into a category.

To me, you and duncan sound oh so similar, though. When I look at a grander picture, anyway. Both of you seem to be the type of individual who would use the information taught to you by your peers and self-research to affect the way you act around your closest friends, even though you probably know them better than something like a psychological study trying to find general traits.

You can be an MRA or a feminist without allowing it to fog the way you handle the men and women who are already in your real life. If you do, you're leading yourself to a very toxic mentality full of frustration, and contentions between your beliefs and opinions. I think this is one of the basic rules of why America is so divided, right now.

It's even odder that you should zero in on one phrase

I wasn't zooming in on one phrase. I'm talking about a mentality that I see being indicated from you and duncan, and probably a few others in this thread.

Lacewing, all I’m saying is women have become pretty extreme nowadays, whereas in public men have been effectively silenced. The sex war is so important for the health of society, and yet men have all but given up -- the wimps. Once men match the number of students in Women’s Studies in their own (non-feminist) Men’s Studies, then we shall see some sort of balance returning to the battle.

Talking about Sir-Sister-of-Suck’s cat, you say:

Another shoot-first mentality who hates feminists and people on the left, and cares only about what is important to himself.
Duncan, is this the male pinnacle you think so brilliant to be in control?

Partly, I would say. We have got to be prepared to kill people, in the extreme, otherwise the violent rule the earth. And men are better at killing than women. But no, I don’t think that men should hate feminists, I think we should engage them in battle joyfully, and try to put an end to their excesses as quickly as possible.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck, thank you for your calm assessment. I agree that anecdote and confirmation bias are very dangerous influences, but I think a certain amount of single-minded obsessiveness is necessary to make advances -- relying on others to correct you, in other words.

As for who’s on top, man or woman please indulge me in a little theorising: behaviourally, men and women are very different: it takes a man to control a woman and it takes a woman to control a man -- hence the importance of marriage. Now look at the modern fad of considering single mothers as just another style of family. Can you see how that demeans men? It means fathers contribute nothing, if they can be done without, it means that children do not need fathers, and it implies the children do just as well in single mother homes. None of that is true, and all of that puts down men. I go so far as to claim that women cannot even be proper mothers (let alone mother and father, both) without a husband beside them.

Ok, in your terms it’s just a theory, but I have many more. I’m ploughing ahead with my campaign against women for as long as I can last … whilst treating them with the respect due to honourable adversaries.

henry quirk, I like your style! I think your analysis applies to perhaps the majority of marriages in the Western world. I go so far as to claim that if the rate of sex falls off below once a week the wife is probably bullying her husband (albeit normally subconsciously). Yes, I agree also: the knot of female logic is men’s fault and responsibility.

I’m not so keen on the term ‘brute’. I see man proposing sex and woman fending him off until she succumbs as an elegant dance -- until #MeToo came along, that is.

"Yes indeed. Every single man who ever lived only cared about pussy..."

The straight ones, yeah.

#

"...and every women who ever lived only ever wanted to give her pussy to a brute."

The straight ones, yeah.

"I’m not so keen on the term ‘brute’."

I coulda just used 'man' throughout, but settled on 'brute' at the end cuz nowadays 'man' has become interchangeable with 'male' (the two aren't synonymous...'man' once had a distinct cultural meaning that's been lost or obscured).

#

"I see man proposing sex and woman fending him off until she succumbs as an elegant dance -- until #MeToo came along, that is."

Oh, the elegant dance got busted up way before the #metoo shrews.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 10:50 pm...

I’ve based my responses on what you’ve said. Now you’re casting yourself as being unduly attacked by people when you were “only opening up”. Your boast about shooting the cat less than a foot from its face, is heartless... and reflects your attitude.

Why not shoot NEAR the animal, instead?

It seems apparent that something about the extreme choice appealed to you –- as did the boasting and exaggerations afterward. Isn’t that reasonable to conclude based on what you’ve said?

Duncan Butlin wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 11:29 pm Lacewing, all I’m saying is women have become pretty extreme nowadays, whereas in public men have been effectively silenced.

How can it be any other way when trying to reprogram such imbalances as men have imposed?

Duncan Butlin wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 11:29 pmThe sex war is so important for the health of society, and yet men have all but given up -- the wimps.

They’ve been taking a lot for granted. Maybe it’s good that they LISTEN.

Duncan Butlin wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 11:29 pm...see some sort of balance returning to the battle.

I think a more authentic balance can be more possible now going forward... and I don’t think relations have to be such a battle. Humans and culture seem to be evolving in a lot of ways right now. More diversity... less about exact opposites.

Duncan Butlin wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 11:29 pmWe have got to be prepared to kill people, in the extreme, otherwise the violent rule the earth.

Isn’t killing violent? Everyone who kills thinks they are justified, right? So who decides between good killers and bad killers and who is violent?

Duncan Butlin wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 11:29 pmI don’t think that men should hate feminists, I think we should engage them in battle joyfully, and try to put an end to their excesses as quickly as possible.

Your type of attitude is the reason for the current upheaval, Duncan. You appear to represent the men who are so enamored with stroking and exalting THEMSELVES, that you’re in complete denial or oblivion as to the excesses of such men, and the toxic and destructive and delusional conditions they’ve perpetrated on all of humankind. Your continued pride about it is remarkable! Soon, your notions will belong in a museum -- it will be an interesting exhibit. I don't think humankind is headed back in that direction.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 06, 2018 1:24 am

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 10:50 pm...

I’ve based my responses on what you’ve said. Now you’re casting yourself as being unduly attacked by people when you were “only opening up”. Your boast about shooting the cat less than a foot from its face, is heartless... and reflects your attitude.

What would have been 'heartless', is if I attacked an animal for no reason other than for fun. But I didn't do that. You know what did? This fucking devil cat.

No, I'm fine with people criticizing my action in this situation. You can disagree with it, although it's being manipulated to sound worse than it actually is; I was doing it as a pretty clear line of defense. How you don't see a justification in that, while owning a bunch of livestock yourself you probably send away to a meat grinder - I have no idea.

But what I really don't like, is how a lot of you guys are missing the reason why I told that story.

Why not shoot NEAR the animal, instead?

Because it's not a loud weapon.

It seems apparent that something about the extreme choice appealed to you –- as did the boasting and exaggerations afterward. Isn’t that reasonable to conclude based on what you’ve said?

I just thought it was a cute story that demonstrated my point about abandoning your ideologies, well enough. Most people like stories about saving baby animals, and it killed with most people. But I guess some of the awkward autists on here would rather imagine the baby kitten getting mauled to death by something that was clearly the predator in this situation. I can only pray that you would not have had similar objections if instead, this cat had his teeth around the neck of a human child.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Mon Aug 06, 2018 2:16 am How you don't see a justification in that, while owning a bunch of livestock yourself you probably send away to a meat grinder - I have no idea.

My goats and chickens are long-term pets. I haven't needed to shoot anything in the face. Somehow I've been able to handle many threats/attacks over many years in non-harmful ways. If I did have to kill or harm something, I would feel sadness and respect for that creature. So can you see why it's difficult for me to see justification in your particular action and how you've spoken about it?

In a larger sense (beyond that smaller discussion), I have a hard time understanding how anyone can so easily hate and dismiss and eradicate another creature just because they're "in the way". Why isn't our response to step back and consider who we think we are, such that we think everything must be "our way" or get out of "our way"? Whether it's feminists... or people on the left or right... or anyone/anything that WE, ourselves, are NOT? Why is there a need to control or destroy "others" -- rather than creating balance with them, as if ALL should be respectfully considered?

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 11:19 pm Well, people can go to jail for a whole lot less, as well. People can in fact go to jail for going against a disenfranchised minority,

How does that work? When a group is disenfranchised, the authorities do not protect them; going against them is safe from legal repercussions. Thus lynching, gay-bashing, harassing Jews, knocking up the maid, appropriating the the property of Japanese internees, beating children in school or sending them to work in factories, killing Indians.... it only depends on the times.
The powerless are always fair game.

I don't know, I don't really care, I guess.

Then why keep harping?

You say you don't separate politics from your friends or family, but what I have been getting at is it's often done unintentionally.

Maybe it it often is. But where did you get that notion from my post about men and women cohabiting?

You say you apply your activism within every cranny of your life, but the above is why I don't know if that's actually true.

I don't recall mentioning either "my" activism or crannies. If one has convictions and principles, it's difficult to leave them at the door; they do tend to inform one's daily life and relationships. Sometimes it even seems important to teach those principles to one's young.

You don't ever need to hurt one thing in order to save another?

Not if I had a choice. Come to think of it, no - there was always a choice.

[I specifically said I do not regard persons as just part of a category or group.]

But you don't disregard that either;

I don't see how anyone can. All persons can be classified according to some groupings, and you would know some of those classifications ( eg: male, old, white, overweight, English-speaking, sartorially challenged) as soon as you meet them for the first time. Once they're friends or family, you must also be aware of how they feel about the various categories to which they belong.

... you may well both see them as their own individual, and as an individual in a group

That, too is unavoidable.
But this

that you have an ideology about.

is problematic. What does it mean to have an ideology about a particular group? Everyone has an ideology. Whether they reflect on it or not, everyone acts according to their ideology, and their every encounter with persons, groups, events and concepts is influenced by that ideology. I don't see how you can include some groups and exclude others from your system of thought. You can be oblivious or indifferent to some groups, I suppose, but that ignorance or indifference is then part of your ideology.

The problem to that is that when both of those things are accepted, you really only act on the latter, because the benefit I'm talking about is suppose to be about having a disregard for your politics.

I'm not seeing either the politics or the benefit to which you refer.

To me, you and duncan sound oh so similar, though. When I look at a grander picture, anyway.

I'm far too myopic to see that grand picture.
But I appreciate your concern.

Duncan Butlin wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 11:29 pm Now look at the modern fad of considering single mothers as just another style of family.

I't's expensive to become a mother while refusing sex with a man. But most single mothers are poor.
Wonder how they became mothers, single and poor, with no man involved.

henry quirk, I like your style!

Not surprising. He comes as close as anyone I know to beating evolution.
But I seem to recall his mentioning an offspring, and if you reproduce, you forfeit the match.

Sir,

Why are you lettin' that crazy woman interrogate you?

You don't owe her jack shit.

##

Skip,

"Wonder how they became mothers, single and poor, with no man involved."

The males banged 'em, knocked 'em up, then skedaddled.

The women are left to raise the bastards and put on the brave face, the feminist show (better than admitting to being a dumb trollop).

#

"He comes as close as anyone I know to beating evolution."

Yep, I'm an unrepentant throwback.

#

"an offspring"

He's my nephew, not my son (not that it matters).

#

"if you reproduce, you forfeit the match."

Not seein' how.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 11:49 pm "Yes indeed. Every single man who ever lived only cared about pussy..."

The straight ones, yeah.

#

"...and every women who ever lived only ever wanted to give her pussy to a brute."

The straight ones, yeah.

You come across as very much a gay man in denial, trying too hard, "protesting too much".

If you want to fool people you need to act more nonchalant. When you keep gratuitously shoehorning sexuality into conversations it's a bit of a red flag.