why are feminist obsessed with Nice guys(TM)

Page 6 of 33 [ 490 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 33  Next

ModusPonens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 770

08 Mar 2014, 8:26 am

beneficii wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
8- See above. Please cite where I called you a "male chauvinist."

You followed up on benificii's accusation of this. It could be the case that you dind't intend it, though. But I doubt it.


Actually, I wasn't referring to you, but feel free to take that shoe and wear it if it fits.


If you had read the posts I made, you would know that I say that the shoe fits. Was that supposed to put me in a bad spot? What I'm saying is that everyone is prejudiced against all groups, including their own. So I'm also a female chauvinist. Maybe that makes you happy, somehow.



ModusPonens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 770

08 Mar 2014, 8:56 am

LKL wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
1- Most recently, the guy in question was a former marine who had done time in Iraq; he was also a very sweet man, who cooked for me and was able to intellectually challenge me in a way that few people are. Unfortunately, he needed more attention and affection than I, as an aspie, was able to give him. He quit returning my calls when I asked for a weekend to myself for an aikido seminar.
The guy before that was a successful attorney; I called it off because he had sour body odor.

Exactly: you were emotionaly dominant. The odor thing is discussible, but if you don't even get the basic points, I will not bother discussing this.

What? I wasn't dominant wrt. either guy. Neither guy was dominant over me. It is possible to have equal romantic relationships with people, just like it's possible to have friendships between men and women, contrary to what you seem to think.
Quote:
I'm not pretending to be psychic. Either another lame joke or ridiculous observation.

Yes, you are. You keep on trying to tell me what is going on in my own head, and being flat-out wrong about it.
Quote:
3- How is it chauvinistic to expect men to clean up their own urine?
It's the feeling I'm pointing out to: "Ugh! Men!" You said you felt that when you saw a toilet with pee.

That would make sense only if women were equally likely to leave urine on the seat as men are, which they are not.
Quote:
But what's going on is that you extrapolated the observation of your personal relationships in which you lived together with your partner to ALL men. That's prejudice.

see above. Men are more likely to leave urine on the seat than women are. Some moreso than others, but in general, based both on my personal experience and that of pretty much any woman or man I've ever talked to, men are vastly more likely to leave urine on the toilet than women. That is experience, not prejudice. Note the "pre" in the word prejudice.

Quote:
It's hard to be more obvious, as long as you are willing to stop for a moment and consider what I'm saying with an objective attitude.

dude, you're the one who needs to stop and consider, just for a moment, that maybe other people's brains are neither exactly like yours nor exactly how you imagine them to be.


Quote:
5- No; I'm saying that men and women are perfectly capable of being friends, and that the men who use the term "friendzone" are the ones who don't believe this. Work on your reading comprehension, dear.
No. Not only I have my comprehension skills sharp, I remember what you've said better than yourself. To be proven wrong, see the bolded sentence on point 11.

I was paraphrasing. I was describing statements that I have seen here on this forum many times - which I made clear in the parentheses.


Quote:
6- I have statistics to back me up. US Women, on average, commit more temporal resources to child-rearing than men do; in addition, US women's time tends to consist of more unpleasant duties like diaper changing, laundry, caring for the sick, etc. and men tend to get more pleasant duties like attending soccer games. If you have a problem with that statement, then you have a problem with the research, not with me.
I do not have a problem since I am openly misandrist and misogynist. You are the one who, like everyone else in this world, has these emotional impulses and still don't admit them.

What emotional impulses?

Quote:
8- See above. Please cite where I called you a "male chauvinist."
You followed up on benificii's accusation of this. It could be the case that you dind't intend it, though. But I doubt it.

Please state which page of the thread, and where on the page, I supposedly did this.

Quote:
Have you ever had the urge to punch someone? Out of all those times, how many did you act by punching? Would you say that everyone has that feeling a few times in life? If they do not act upon those feelings (or impulses, if you like) do you consider them bad people? Then are all people evil? :?

I have trained in aikido for 14 years. I've punched all kinds of people in the dojo, and been punched myself. I've also kicked in a front door, thrown objects and made holes in other doors, and kicked a hole in my bedroom wall. I have gone berserk in fights with my brother.
If I had ever deliberately hurt someone, though, I would be a bad person. If I could not judge people as individuals, I would be a bad person.
As for evil, that's an entirely different concept.

Quote:
Quote:
Now you're saying that you're not transgender? Weren't you, then, lying when you said that you've dealt with being a woman?
Again I don't know if this is a continuation of a mildly amusing sarcasm or a really dim sequence of observations.

Were you lying when you said that you have personally dealt with the emotions and thoughts of being a woman? Yes?
Quote:
You judged all men based on your own experience. If someone happened to be robbed 4 times in their lives and each robber was mexican, would you say that it wouldn't be prejudiced of this person to say that ALL mexicans are robbers?

judging based on experience is post-judice, not pre-judice. By definition. I would not say that an n of 4 was statistically significant, no, but I've known considerably more than 4 men in my life. Also, what "judgement" is it, exactly, that you think that I have made about "all men," other than that they're more likely to pee on the toilet seat and not clean it up?

Quote:
It's really frustrating when I use your own words to prove that you are wrong and you still don't see it. I was saying by your own standards, not by mine.
Darling, I differentiated "Nice Guys(tm)" from nice guys. I never said that they were the only two choices.
Quote:
You have much to learn.

That may be the case, but I frankly don't think that you have either the brains or the experience to teach me anything.


It's hard to teach a person who is so attached to their indoctrination that they won't stop and think.

1- In every relation _ friendship or dating _ there is a person who is dominant. Human behaviour 101.

2- I keep being flat-out right.

3- I'll adress two paragraphs in one: that post judgement is confirmation bias, not objective post judgement. Hence, a prejudice.

4- Would you please adress the point, then? (If you don't remember, it's the argument of the primate behaviour)

6- You're lying now. You must be pretty desperate.... you said explicity, in brakets, that you didn't mean to be sarcastic with that observation.

7- The emotional impulses that everyone has but that you're not even aware of. You're 38 and still not aware.

8- Do your wrok, honey, as I did mine.

9- Thank you. You just admited one of my points: you can have negative feelings and not be a bad person if you don't act based on them. Meaning, I can be a good person and have prejudice.

10- Wow you are serious! 8O

11- You've lost the train of thought. Read the thread again because you don't even know what you're talking about anymore. I was puting you in either the nice girls or the nice girls (TM) category. If you say you're in neither than you define yourself as bad person? If so, why are you even arguing about this?

12- You'd be surprised. At least I haven't lost the train of thought, nor have contradicted myself, which probably means I have more brains than you do. As for experience: with a better brain, you don't have to live as much, in order to accumulate more knowledge. But someone who doesn't listen cannot be thaught.



leafplant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,222

08 Mar 2014, 9:58 am

The way I see it is this:

If your problem is leftist feminists, that means that you are not able and/or willing to accept women as equal to men or even that some women are better than men. As far as you are concerned, a low IQ, socially degenerate male is still better than any female.

So, obviously, feminists will have an issue with that view.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,938

08 Mar 2014, 5:02 pm

ModusPonens wrote:
It's hard to teach a person who is so attached to their indoctrination that they won't stop and think.

Yes, I've noticed. :roll:
Quote:
1- In every relation _ friendship or dating _ there is a person who is dominant. Human behaviour 101.

You are not correct. First, there academic term is "ethology," not "behavior." For humans, dominance theory is usually covered in psychology and communication classes... and, yes, I have taken both, and done well in them, as well as ethology classes. Work groups will almost always have a leader, who may or may not be "dominant" in the sense that lay people usually think about, and probably is not "dominant" in the ethological sense (controlling access to scarce resources). Other people will take on other necessary group roles: peace-maker, translator, representative, etc. In friendships and partnerships, it is unlikely for one partner or the other to be dominant in the ethological sense; one partner or the other might be the leader in some situations, and not in others. For example, with my last relationship, my boyfriend was the leader in the kitchen because he was a better cook than me. He also usually set the schedule when we were doing social activities around town. When we were camping out in the boonies, I set the schedule; this wasn't because he was "dominant" in town and I was "dominant" while camping, it was because he enjoyed town activities more than me and I enjoyed wilderness activities more than him.

But that doesn't fit your convenient little narrative of dominance and submission, does it?
Quote:
2- I keep being flat-out right.

Only in your own mind, honey.

Quote:
3- I'll adress two paragraphs in one: that post judgement is confirmation bias, not objective post judgement. Hence, a prejudice.

This might help you:
http://dictionary.reference.com

Quote:
4- Would you please adress the point, then? (If you don't remember, it's the argument of the primate behaviour)

No, actually, it's still argument about you not knowing the actual definitions of basic English words, and pretending to be psychic. Also, your fisking sucks; please take the time to use quote-brackets.
Quote:
6- You're lying now. You must be pretty desperate.... you said explicity, in brakets, that you didn't mean to be sarcastic with that observation.

:roll:
Dude. See the dictionary above. Saying 'I'm not being sarcastic' means, roughly, 'I'm not deliberately misstating this in a bitterly humorous way.' I accompanied 'I'm not being sarcastic' with 'I've seen this actual behavior on this forum.'
Seriously.

Quote:
7- The emotional impulses that everyone has but that you're not even aware of. You're 38 and still not aware.

You said I was being emotional - with the implication of 'more emotional than usual,' or 'more emotional than normal,' with respect to a specific comment that I had made. Given that I have the typical Asperger's issue of not being emotional enough, I'm curious about what you specifically meant, especially with regard to that comment.
Quote:
8- Do your wrok, honey, as I did mine.

The burden of proof is on the person making the affirmative claim or accusation.
Quote:
9- Thank you. You just admited one of my points: you can have negative feelings and not be a bad person if you don't act based on them. Meaning, I can be a good person and have prejudice.

Not all bad feelings are equally bad, and not all bad actions are equally bad. Saying that a person can still be good if they have some prejudices... yes. But having prejudices as a minor part of your personality is a different thing from being a prejudiced person, as a major part of your personality. It's like the difference between being angry (temporary) or being an angry person (all the time).
Quote:
10- Wow you are serious! 8O

So, yeah: you were lying.
Quote:
11- You've lost the train of thought. Read the thread again because you don't even know what you're talking about anymore. I was puting you in either the nice girls or the nice girls (TM) category. If you say you're in neither than you define yourself as bad person? If so, why are you even arguing about this?

Dude....
I'm disagreeing with you about what the point is. That doesn't make me wrong or bubble-headed. Also? saying I am neither does not automatically make me a "bad person."
Quote:
12- You'd be surprised.

No, I don't think that I would be. You haven't said a single novel, surprising, or even very interesting thing in this entire thread; you misuse basic English terminology; your logic is a complete fail; and you not only have the Aspie trait of completely lacking a Theory of Mind, but you seem not to even be capable of understanding, or to be uninterested in understanding on an intellectual level, that there is such a thing. You have done nothing but parrot pop-psychology and pretend that you are psychic, and then throw fits when yo are told that you are not psychic and that pop psychology isn't accurate.

edit: this isn't worth arguing any more, especially given that there's a problem with the usage of basic English. Modus Ponens, you get the last word for now.



NobodyKnows
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 564

08 Mar 2014, 6:39 pm

Let me get this straight: a guy "[isn't] really nice" or is "clingy" if he expects - or just hopes? - to get something - anything? - back after putting out up-front for months? Heck, even my mom expects that. Note to self: she doesn't really care about me; all of that mothering was just to entrap me into paying attention to her. Same with the chocolates Sis gave me this Christmas. She probably wants me to take her to coffee again. What a jerk!

Really, if you don't want to feel obligated, then don't. I won't do anything for you either*. Call me weird, but I think it *is* pretty nice when a guy puts his life on hold and spends months courting a girl without any promise in return.

*By the way, do you have any idea what that means? My life is cheap compared to a typical girl's life, and not because I'm a slob. On the contrary, my place is usually both neater and cleaner than my female friends' places, and I have nice stuff. I just don't buy stuff for the sake of buying it, which saves a ton. If I were making things only for myself and other guys, we could shut down entire industries and much of what's needed to support them. I could just go home and ignore you rude chicks, or work no more than three days a week and spend the rest at a spa.

We could cut the roads budget in half by not trucking as much clutter, saving about $50-100 billion every year. We could cut factories and foundries that make the heavy equipment to support it; we could shut down mines, refineries, ports, shipping lanes, and naval fleets that guard them; we could shut down most STEM programs because you don't really need to re-engineer everything every six months. That by itself would save tens of billions.

Tell me when you have a real problem to solve, and I'll go back to work - but first, I'll ask: "What have you done for me lately?"



Last edited by NobodyKnows on 08 Mar 2014, 7:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.

billiscool
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,179

08 Mar 2014, 7:00 pm

leafplant wrote:
The way I see it is this:

If your problem is leftist feminists, that means that you are not able and/or willing to accept women as equal to men or even that some women are better than men. As far as you are concerned, a low IQ, socially degenerate male is still better than any female.

So, obviously, feminists will have an issue with that view.


feminist do not represent women,alot of women hate feminist.
Are they anti women,too.



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,363
Location: Scandinavia

08 Mar 2014, 7:24 pm

billiscool wrote:
leafplant wrote:
The way I see it is this:

If your problem is leftist feminists, that means that you are not able and/or willing to accept women as equal to men or even that some women are better than men. As far as you are concerned, a low IQ, socially degenerate male is still better than any female.

So, obviously, feminists will have an issue with that view.


feminist do not represent women,alot of women hate feminist.
Are they anti women,too.



Feminism is not one single, unified group. Just like not all animal's right activists are nutcases from PETA who force their kids to have a vegan diet, not all feminists are like Andrea Dworkin.



NobodyKnows
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 564

08 Mar 2014, 7:55 pm

OTOH, a lot of words get spoiled by a few people. I'm white, but I probably wouldn't call myself an Aryan (even though, technically, I am). I also don't see anything wrong with "white pride" other than negative associations. If "feminist" is adopted by enough nasty, destructive, narcissistic people, is it too much to ask the nicer women that you allude to to distinguish themselves from that?



ModusPonens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 770

08 Mar 2014, 10:44 pm

LKL wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
It's hard to teach a person who is so attached to their indoctrination that they won't stop and think.

Yes, I've noticed. :roll:
Quote:
1- In every relation _ friendship or dating _ there is a person who is dominant. Human behaviour 101.

You are not correct. First, there academic term is "ethology," not "behavior." For humans, dominance theory is usually covered in psychology and communication classes... and, yes, I have taken both, and done well in them, as well as ethology classes. Work groups will almost always have a leader, who may or may not be "dominant" in the sense that lay people usually think about, and probably is not "dominant" in the ethological sense (controlling access to scarce resources). Other people will take on other necessary group roles: peace-maker, translator, representative, etc. In friendships and partnerships, it is unlikely for one partner or the other to be dominant in the ethological sense; one partner or the other might be the leader in some situations, and not in others. For example, with my last relationship, my boyfriend was the leader in the kitchen because he was a better cook than me. He also usually set the schedule when we were doing social activities around town. When we were camping out in the boonies, I set the schedule; this wasn't because he was "dominant" in town and I was "dominant" while camping, it was because he enjoyed town activities more than me and I enjoyed wilderness activities more than him.

But that doesn't fit your convenient little narrative of dominance and submission, does it?
Quote:
2- I keep being flat-out right.

Only in your own mind, honey.

Quote:
3- I'll adress two paragraphs in one: that post judgement is confirmation bias, not objective post judgement. Hence, a prejudice.

This might help you:
http://dictionary.reference.com

Quote:
4- Would you please adress the point, then? (If you don't remember, it's the argument of the primate behaviour)

No, actually, it's still argument about you not knowing the actual definitions of basic English words, and pretending to be psychic. Also, your fisking sucks; please take the time to use quote-brackets.
Quote:
6- You're lying now. You must be pretty desperate.... you said explicity, in brakets, that you didn't mean to be sarcastic with that observation.

:roll:
Dude. See the dictionary above. Saying 'I'm not being sarcastic' means, roughly, 'I'm not deliberately misstating this in a bitterly humorous way.' I accompanied 'I'm not being sarcastic' with 'I've seen this actual behavior on this forum.'
Seriously.

Quote:
7- The emotional impulses that everyone has but that you're not even aware of. You're 38 and still not aware.

You said I was being emotional - with the implication of 'more emotional than usual,' or 'more emotional than normal,' with respect to a specific comment that I had made. Given that I have the typical Asperger's issue of not being emotional enough, I'm curious about what you specifically meant, especially with regard to that comment.
Quote:
8- Do your wrok, honey, as I did mine.

The burden of proof is on the person making the affirmative claim or accusation.
Quote:
9- Thank you. You just admited one of my points: you can have negative feelings and not be a bad person if you don't act based on them. Meaning, I can be a good person and have prejudice.

Not all bad feelings are equally bad, and not all bad actions are equally bad. Saying that a person can still be good if they have some prejudices... yes. But having prejudices as a minor part of your personality is a different thing from being a prejudiced person, as a major part of your personality. It's like the difference between being angry (temporary) or being an angry person (all the time).
Quote:
10- Wow you are serious! 8O

So, yeah: you were lying.
Quote:
11- You've lost the train of thought. Read the thread again because you don't even know what you're talking about anymore. I was puting you in either the nice girls or the nice girls (TM) category. If you say you're in neither than you define yourself as bad person? If so, why are you even arguing about this?

Dude....
I'm disagreeing with you about what the point is. That doesn't make me wrong or bubble-headed. Also? saying I am neither does not automatically make me a "bad person."
Quote:
12- You'd be surprised.

No, I don't think that I would be. You haven't said a single novel, surprising, or even very interesting thing in this entire thread; you misuse basic English terminology; your logic is a complete fail; and you not only have the Aspie trait of completely lacking a Theory of Mind, but you seem not to even be capable of understanding, or to be uninterested in understanding on an intellectual level, that there is such a thing. You have done nothing but parrot pop-psychology and pretend that you are psychic, and then throw fits when yo are told that you are not psychic and that pop psychology isn't accurate.

edit: this isn't worth arguing any more, especially given that there's a problem with the usage of basic English. Modus Ponens, you get the last word for now.


1- That's cute.

2- Well, since you have brought the "aspiness" into the game, let me tell you: you have 8 more years than I do and, yet, you have about half of my life experience _ insight into the workings of the mind included.

3- Well, I'm not a native english speaker, nor did I ever live in an english speaking country. Yet I'm absolutely certain that I speak well enough to convey the idea I was expressing, were you not anal retentive.

4- "Oh, mustn't adress the main argument! Must keep throwing dirt into the guy's eyes!"
:roll:
Do you think I have time and patience to adress your points in a very oderly fashion? If you repeatedly made points worth of it, it's possible that I would. However, you keep refering to me as a pseudo-psychic. That deserves zero intelectual respect.

5- Lying your a** out of your own pit again.

6- Either you're lying again, or you have a bad memory (neither a new thing from you in this discussion).
I said:
I do not have a problem since I am openly misandrist and misogynist. You are the one who, like everyone else in this world, has these emotional impulses and still don't admit them.

7- No. The burden of proof lies with the person who claims that, although humans are primates, their sexual behaviour is different from the other primates. That is the extraordinary claim and you have to prove it. Not with politically correct propaganda. With facts.

8- So, again, you admit it: you are prejudiced (although, possibly, not in a strong sense). Therefore, by your own standards, you are not a nice person. You are (at best) a nice girl (TM), the homologous group of the group so hated by these feminists.

9- I was lying? That doesn't even make sense. As I said before, I am not a psychic, nor am I pretending to be one. Just like I know what you feel when you hit a piece of furniture with your pinky, because I have one, I know how all people feel on many things. That's called experience, not psychic phenomena. Is that so hard to understand?

10- If your point is that I'm pretending to be a psychic, create a new thread to make a fool out of yourself, please. This is to discuss the ridiculous denial of the friendzone. And my contention, related to this topic is that these are the feminists who fight the internal fight of denial of desires of submission to males.

11- Ugh... do I have to remind you of the pinky analogy? Not only I'm aware that people have different motivations on a certain level, I'm aware that almost all people have the same motivations on an even deeper level, with little variations. You're still at the previous level. Therefore, you're right: it is not of much gain to be discussing this _ except it's me who do not gain anything. It is fun though, I admit that.

If you wish to respond, please adress the main argument, from which the contention follows, about the sexual behaviour of humans vs the sexual behaviour of other primates. The burden of proof is with you.



starvingartist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,104

08 Mar 2014, 11:47 pm

ModusPonens wrote:
I said:
I do not have a problem since I am openly misandrist and misogynist. You are the one who, like everyone else in this world, has these emotional impulses and still don't admit them.

10- If your point is that I'm pretending to be a psychic, create a new thread to make a fool out of yourself, please. This is to discuss the ridiculous denial of the friendzone. And my contention, related to this topic is that these are the feminists who fight the internal fight of denial of desires of submission to males.

11- Ugh... do I have to remind you of the pinky analogy? Not only I'm aware that people have different motivations on a certain level, I'm aware that almost all people have the same motivations on an even deeper level, with little variations. You're still at the previous level. Therefore, you're right: it is not of much gain to be discussing this _ except it's me who do not gain anything. It is fun though, I admit that.


your belief that everyone is compelled to hate everyone else is false. just because you feel that way you cannot assume that everyone does. this is the theory of mind business that was pointed out to you earlier that you ignored. you are a human being--but it is a logical fallacy to assume that because you are human, and you have certain feelings and react to situations in certain ways, that ALL HUMANS feel the same as you and react the same as you. For example--everyone feels pain when they hurt themselves: some people will deal with that by crying, some will jump around and swear, some will get angry at themselves. this is because human beings are UNIQUE INDIVIDUALS.

ModusPonens wrote:
7- No. The burden of proof lies with the person who claims that, although humans are primates, their sexual behaviour is different from the other primates. That is the extraordinary claim and you have to prove it. Not with politically correct propaganda. With facts.


this is also a logical fallacy--you are assuming that all primates' sexual behaviour is the same: they are not. chimpanzee sexuality is quite different from that of bonobos, and they are two of the most closely related species of large primates. before you tear someone else up for their "ignorance" about primate sexuality, make sure you know what you're talking about first.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,673
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

09 Mar 2014, 7:22 am

@ModusPonens: LKL and I are typically on opposite ends of arguments, but what she said about burden of proof is true. Whoever makes an affirmative claim is obligated to support that claim with evidence. It can't be with someone just making extraordinary claims, the reason being that exactly what an "extraordinary claim" IS exactly is itself debatable.

And typically "extraordinary claims" arguments are not used in this way. What I've always heard was "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." That's just anti-intellectual, dishonest goal-post moving. So even if LKL WERE making extraordinary claims, which I don't think she is, then you'd still be in the wrong.



Schneekugel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,944

10 Mar 2014, 5:12 am

NobodyKnows wrote:
OTOH, a lot of words get spoiled by a few people. I'm white, but I probably wouldn't call myself an Aryan (even though, technically, I am). I also don't see anything wrong with "white pride" other than negative associations. If "feminist" is adopted by enough nasty, destructive, narcissistic people, is it too much to ask the nicer women that you allude to to distinguish themselves from that?


I should distinguish myself, because of some women that 99,5% of the average people have never heard of, dont even know of their existence, and dont have any importancy on normal life, only because of a few guy, having whatever issues and totally obsessing about that and searching on purpose for ridiculous videos of self-announced "speakers of feminism" that beside you, noone even knows of?

Look at all that topics in the forum here: So how many of those videos showing some weird gals and how many topics about nice guys and similar stuff, were posted by men, and how many actually by women? So who seems the one paying far more attention to all that stuff, and who seem to be the one, that are affected by that? ^^

If it would not be for the few bunch of guys here, that seem to have too much time to spend in internet for searching for stuff, they can obsess about, I would not even know of the existence of all of that, because of these people having absolutely no importancy to normal society.

So how the hell can I be expected to react and distinguish myself, that 99,5% of humanity does not even know about, if not being totally obsessive about finding anything totally unimportant, having totally no effect on daily life at all, that I can use as excuse to blame it for all my problems.

Oh, I have a mental disability. Could that be the reason, why 98% of people automatically reject me, as they do with everyone else as well, that has this mental disability? - No, it must be that unknown womans repsonsibility, saying some nonesen in an video, that 99,5% of people rejecting me, never heard of.

Oh, I have an mental disability. Could that be the reason, why I have a shitty time finding a job, just as everyone else with the same mental disability? - No, it must be that unknown womans responsibility, saying some nonsense in an video, that 99,5% of people rejecting me, never heard of.

Maybe the information, has not become public, but Asperger is an mental disability (or special treat or however someone want to praise it) that causes us in average, to be shitty at socializing. And because of us being shitty at socializing, average people prefer to spend their time, with other people that are not as shitty at socializing as we are. Thats normal, thats as well as we do: We prefer to spend time with the person, that causes us to be more happy, when we spend time with them. I am betting that 95% of the guys, blaming here some obscure wanna-be feminists, noone ever has heard of beside the ones posting that stuff always, for their problem in dating womens - have exactly the same problems when it comes to socialize with men as well. Simply because of it not being any male/female issues, but simply an "I am in general shitty as hell at socializing." I mean, what for did you get your diagnosis, when you dont read at all, what you have been diagnosed for, and instead still search for weird reasons, what might be responsible, for us being shitty at socializing and people rejecting us?



ModusPonens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 770

10 Mar 2014, 2:24 pm

starvingartist wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
I said:
I do not have a problem since I am openly misandrist and misogynist. You are the one who, like everyone else in this world, has these emotional impulses and still don't admit them.

10- If your point is that I'm pretending to be a psychic, create a new thread to make a fool out of yourself, please. This is to discuss the ridiculous denial of the friendzone. And my contention, related to this topic is that these are the feminists who fight the internal fight of denial of desires of submission to males.

11- Ugh... do I have to remind you of the pinky analogy? Not only I'm aware that people have different motivations on a certain level, I'm aware that almost all people have the same motivations on an even deeper level, with little variations. You're still at the previous level. Therefore, you're right: it is not of much gain to be discussing this _ except it's me who do not gain anything. It is fun though, I admit that.


your belief that everyone is compelled to hate everyone else is false. just because you feel that way you cannot assume that everyone does. this is the theory of mind business that was pointed out to you earlier that you ignored. you are a human being--but it is a logical fallacy to assume that because you are human, and you have certain feelings and react to situations in certain ways, that ALL HUMANS feel the same as you and react the same as you. For example--everyone feels pain when they hurt themselves: some people will deal with that by crying, some will jump around and swear, some will get angry at themselves. this is because human beings are UNIQUE INDIVIDUALS.

ModusPonens wrote:
7- No. The burden of proof lies with the person who claims that, although humans are primates, their sexual behaviour is different from the other primates. That is the extraordinary claim and you have to prove it. Not with politically correct propaganda. With facts.


this is also a logical fallacy--you are assuming that all primates' sexual behaviour is the same: they are not. chimpanzee sexuality is quite different from that of bonobos, and they are two of the most closely related species of large primates. before you tear someone else up for their "ignorance" about primate sexuality, make sure you know what you're talking about first.


Exactly! Very good analogy! Everyone feels pain, but everyone reacts in its own way. That's exactly what I'm saying, but on an
emotional-impulse level. But if you want a demonstration I'll give it to you. In the following video Louis CK (stay with me), a brilliant comic, makes everyone expose their racist impulse. What you will see is a situation in which almost everyone exerts the deffense mechanism called reactive formation in psychoanalysis. But nevermind the technicalities. What is important to understand is the following: if you have a negative feeling/impulse, but you cannot accept it because you think it's very wrong, you imediatly (and without being aware of it) try to react with the opposite feeling. It's a sort of compensation on the surface for the negative feeling on the bottom. If you don't understand the point I'm trying to make after this, I don't know what to tell you. What I'm talking about happens shortly before 3:00, but you have to watch it from the begining.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkjmzEEQUlE[/youtube]


About primate sexuality, relatively fair point, although very weak. I tried to google "list of matriarchal mammals" and there is nothing worth reading out of the search results. If there were many, I'm sure there would be a list. Not a proof, off course. This can be compared to newtonian fluids vs non-newtonian fluids. If you bring me a new compound which is fluid, I'll start by assuming it's newtonian, unless evidence suggests otherwise. In the same way, it's completely reasonable to assume that the behaviour I mentioned in primates (which, from what I gather, is the rule, not the exception; and even more compelling if you consider all mammals) is aproximately the same in humans.



starvingartist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,104

10 Mar 2014, 5:42 pm

ModusPonens wrote:


About primate sexuality, relatively fair point, although very weak. (really--how so?)I tried to google "list of matriarchal mammals" and there is nothing worth reading out of the search results. If there were many, I'm sure there would be a list (however short or long that list would be, bonobos would be on it). Not a proof, off course. This can be compared to newtonian fluids vs non-newtonian fluids. If you bring me a new compound which is fluid, I'll start by assuming it's newtonian, unless evidence suggests otherwise. In the same way, it's completely reasonable to assume that the behaviour I mentioned in primates (which, from what I gather, is the rule, not the exception; and even more compelling if you consider all mammals) is aproximately the same in humans.


hate to be a nit-picker, but that's actually not a reasonable assumption--otherwise assuming that humans get around via the trees like orangutans would also be a reasonable assumption, which it obviously is not. animal behavior is not newtonian physics. primate behaviour is extremely complex and diverse amongst the various species.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,573

11 Mar 2014, 9:42 am

Woah, 5 blog posts! And there are more!


Coming up next:
Why are feminists obsessed with Scandal?


_________________
.