Men's Rights

Page 6 of 9 [ 131 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

19 Jul 2011, 11:23 pm

Ancalagon wrote:

LKL wrote:

FFS. I cannot f***ing believe that you are pulling a Godwin over the supposition that 'men don't have enough rights.'
You lose.

Godwin's law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"

Hitler was not mentioned. Nazis were not mentioned.

Comparisons were not made.

He quoted Martin Niemöller, who eloquently indicated that speaking out for others is a good idea.

He quoted Niemoller about Nazis killing people. It absolutely was a Godwin.

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

19 Jul 2011, 11:52 pm

LKL wrote:

FFS. I cannot f***ing believe that you are pulling a Godwin over the supposition that 'men don't have enough rights.'
You lose.

So you so, its not a zero sum game, then I say, its not a zero sum game... then you say that I lose, you fail at logic.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

19 Jul 2011, 11:56 pm

LKL wrote:

Ancalagon wrote:

LKL wrote:

FFS. I cannot f***ing believe that you are pulling a Godwin over the supposition that 'men don't have enough rights.'
You lose.

Godwin's law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"

Hitler was not mentioned. Nazis were not mentioned.

Comparisons were not made.

He quoted Martin Niemöller, who eloquently indicated that speaking out for others is a good idea.

He quoted Niemoller about Nazis killing people. It absolutely was a Godwin.

Reread the bolded bits.

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

20 Jul 2011, 12:08 am

LKL wrote:

what statement was that? That the laws in the US are almost exclusively made, interpreted, and enforced by men?

The three statements you made about that, yes. Originally I said that they were either almost certainly false, or you were using a very unusual definition for 'almost exclusively'.

Quote:

When women make up less than 90% of the bodies that make, interpret, and enforce the laws, I consider that 'almost exclusively' male.

I assume you meant something more like 'when women make up less than 10%...".

That would indeed count as an unusual definition of 'almost exclusively'.

How you like to use adjectives isn't the point, though, since you gave out the 10% number. Do you have evidence that this is a valid number, or are you just making stuff up?

Quote:

However, if you look at all of the people who have filled these roles for the last 50-100 years, and who thereby established the laws and norms that we currently exist under, yes, 'almost exclusively' definitely applies.

Old laws that are no longer wanted can be abolished, you know. I don't see how looking at the past is helpful regarding how things are now.

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

20 Jul 2011, 1:48 am

91 wrote:

LKL wrote:

FFS. I cannot f***ing believe that you are pulling a Godwin over the supposition that 'men don't have enough rights.'
You lose.

So you so, its not a zero sum game, then I say, its not a zero sum game... then you say that I lose, you fail at logic.

The game as a whole is not zero-sum, but you (thank goodness) do not represent the whole of the game.

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

20 Jul 2011, 1:53 am

LKL wrote:

91 wrote:

LKL wrote:

FFS. I cannot f***ing believe that you are pulling a Godwin over the supposition that 'men don't have enough rights.'
You lose.

So you so, its not a zero sum game, then I say, its not a zero sum game... then you say that I lose, you fail at logic.

The game as a whole is not zero-sum, but you (thank goodness) do not represent the whole of the game.

I honestly don't understand why you think there is still disagreement, unless you are saying it is a zero sum game. I think an injustice is an injustice, to a woman, to a man, its all the same.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

20 Jul 2011, 1:59 am

Ancalagon wrote:

LKL wrote:

what statement was that? That the laws in the US are almost exclusively made, interpreted, and enforced by men?

The three statements you made about that, yes. Originally I said that they were either almost certainly false, or you were using a very unusual definition for 'almost exclusively'.

Quote:

When women make up less than 90% of the bodies that make, interpret, and enforce the laws, I consider that 'almost exclusively' male.

I assume you meant something more like 'when women make up less than 10%...".

yes.

Quote:

That would indeed count as an unusual definition of 'almost exclusively'.

Do you think so? I don't.

Quote:

Do you have evidence that this is a valid number, or are you just making stuff up?

What world do you live in?

Quote:

Old laws that are no longer wanted can be abolished, you know. I don't see how looking at the past is helpful regarding how things are now.

The debate was whether or not the current laws favored women or men, and the claim was that they are unlikely to favor women because they were written, interpreted, and enforced primarily by men. The past is relevant. We can change the laws for the future, but bringing lawmakers, judges, police, and prosecutors into gender equality is unlikely to make the 'Men's Rights' whiners any happier.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

20 Jul 2011, 2:02 am

Ancalagon wrote:

LKL wrote:

Ancalagon wrote:

LKL wrote:

FFS. I cannot f***ing believe that you are pulling a Godwin over the supposition that 'men don't have enough rights.'
You lose.

He quoted Niemoller about Nazis killing people. It absolutely was a Godwin.

Reread the bolded bits.

Honey, you do realize that not all comparisons involve 'like' or 'as,' don't you?

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

20 Jul 2011, 3:00 am

LKL wrote:

Honey,

Don't be condescending.

Quote:

you do realize that not all comparisons involve 'like' or 'as,' don't you?

So you're saying he made a non-literal comparison of some sort? Who do you think he was trying to compare to Nazis and/or Hitler, then?

He said, right before the quote:

91 wrote:

I think we actually have broad agreement on this. My main point was that an injustice to one is an injustice to all.

He is apparently suggesting that injustice in general is bad, and we should be alert for it, which seems to me is almost exactly what the quote is saying.

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

20 Jul 2011, 3:25 am

LKL wrote:

Quote:

That would indeed count as an unusual definition of 'almost exclusively'.

Do you think so? I don't.

I'd define 'almost exclusively' as something around 99% as a minimum.

Quote:

Do you have evidence that this is a valid number, or are you just making stuff up?

What world do you live in?

One in which people who make claims that are numerical in nature feel no need to back them up with numbers, apparently.

10% is a very round number. Maybe you just rounded something off, but it's a number that someone might just guess, and it feels wrong to me.

Quote:

We can change the laws for the future, but bringing lawmakers, judges, police, and prosecutors into gender equality is unlikely to make the 'Men's Rights' whiners any happier.

That doesn't appear to be their direct concern, no.

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

20 Jul 2011, 5:57 am

Philologos wrote:

So nice if only Big Brother would let you interact as individuals and not members of sets, groups, teams, races, ethnicities.

Yes, we should judge as individuals about individuals. It's the fairest thing in the world.

John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

20 Jul 2011, 7:23 am

Philologos wrote:

pandabear wrote:

John_Browning wrote:

Now according to the 2010 census, MEN are the MINORITY. Women make up 1.6% of the population.

That would mean that men make up 98.4% of the population, which would put men in the majority.

Credit where credit is due. Your math is besser as the of JB. Unless - are insects being counted in those population figures? If so, the % for men could be, say, ,5%.

I made a really bad typo. It's 1.6% MORE women than men. 49.2%-50.8%. Still, if the political climate for women is as bad as LKL makes it sound, they have the numbers to change that. Having appellate judges that are male or female really doesn't matter if they know how to read the constitution plainly in the context it was written and apply it that way. Perhaps she should also consider that there aren't as many female doctors, judges, and politicians because it's easier to marry one and drop out of college. As soon as it's easier for women to run for congress than cook a congressman's dinner, wash his laundry, give him a blowjob, and take his credit card to the mall, more women might run for congress. Because let's face it, most people just want the easy way out of doing things.

_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

20 Jul 2011, 12:04 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Elections on the national level are held the 1st Tuesday after the 1st Monday of November.

And in your inimitable fashion you completely miss the point as you focus in on minutiae.

The issue is the particular date on which you hold election--the issue is that decisions which appear to be neutral on their face can put intentional barriers in the way of participation.

_________________
--James

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

20 Jul 2011, 6:03 pm

visagrunt wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

Elections on the national level are held the 1st Tuesday after the 1st Monday of November.

Employers are required by law to let their workers take time off during election day to go vote, additionally there is something known as an absentee ballot.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

20 Jul 2011, 8:01 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

visagrunt wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

Elections on the national level are held the 1st Tuesday after the 1st Monday of November.

Employers are required by law to let their workers take time off during election day to go vote, additionally there is something known as an absentee ballot.

In addition to that, the polls open early and close late.
There's not much of a leg to stand on when claiming lack of access to the polls.....

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

20 Jul 2011, 8:06 pm

Are candidates 51% Women and 49% Men? Oh, that's right. There is also the assumption that misogyny is a male-only issue. There are women out there that love to support misogynistic political movements because that's the only thing they know.

91 wrote:

My point was that it is not a zero sum game. I think we actually have broad agreement on this. My main point was that an injustice to one is an injustice to all.

'First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.'

-Pastor Martin Niemöller

Ancalagon wrote:

Implying that there is some "injustice" similar to the context of the Pastor Martin's quote is a comparison. Pretending that was not godwin is denial.

In fact, to call the situation with men "an injustice" is to live in a complete state of delusion and cluelessness.

Therefore I declare both quoted posts to be full of fail.

_________________
.

Page 6 of 9 [ 131 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Jump to:

Men's Rights Post Reply New Topic

Men's Rights