|
SamsungStar has a big of logic though. He does unfortunately happen to use too much terminology like "white knight" which , somewhat in terms of normal human thinking, makes him "lose credibility".
On the other hand, his abstracted and generic model does prove fairly consistent. That's if you take the statements he uses.
Remember, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Any theory may not be both complete and consistent. But an inconsistent theory is useless because everything is true.
He's somewhat true in stating that it might be possible that it would be easier to move to an Asian culture. Partially because the monetary value of American currency might completely overshadow the utility calculation functions of countries without a strong economy. Of course, then SamsungStar probably would've made a better point by saying he would have a better chance at places where his competition had an economic disadvantage.
On the other hand, it just so happens that a majority of people in Asian countries do *have* a weaker economy for the median and average human being.
Although I digress, but, once you get "smarter", yes, you can bicker on how a person is this and that, but that's really pointless in information gathering. Just make it your goal to hold your own consistent theory in the head and view each post as information to test your consistent theory. Or in Starcraft 2 terms ... your "build" =P
|
On February 20 2013 03:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2013 03:05 Shady Sands wrote:On February 20 2013 03:03 SamsungStar wrote:On February 20 2013 02:56 Thurken wrote:On February 20 2013 01:26 Shady Sands wrote:On February 20 2013 01:04 SamsungStar wrote:On February 19 2013 16:12 KwarK wrote:On February 19 2013 16:03 SamsungStar wrote:On February 19 2013 15:56 KwarK wrote:On February 19 2013 15:47 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
[quote]
While I agree with the premise that ignoring differing opinions and positions is generally wrong and narrow-minded... I have to say that nothing of value can be gained by listening to internet whiteknights do their best impersonation of a doormat as they worship the shit out of women and defend them no matter the context in hopes that their efforts will one day pay off.
Some of the stuff SamsungStar says can be pretty childish sometimes, some of the stories he posts can be pretty far-fetched sometimes... but disregarding all that, I'd say his view on how the world works is far more realistic and accurate than that of these feminist men. I'd say his view on the world is pretty much a mirror of the bullshit we call out man hating feminists on. All he's doing is claiming that the other gender is untrustworthy, motivated by shallow desires and ultimately inferior based upon anecdotal evidence and broad generalisations. It's bullshit when women do it about men and it's bullshit when men do it about women because the only real pattern that can be drawn is that some people are assholes. In this case SamsungStar with his "lol I didn't read your long post cause I'm too cool" is an asshole but let's avoid his mistake and not extrapolate that to all men. Don't call me an asshole for having opposing views. I've responded to dozens of other arguments in this thread already. I'm not going to waste time on a long post of canned arguments. And at what point did I ever say women were inferior? I've been saying the exact opposite, namely that they are superior and are outmaneuvering men in modern day relationships. In this case, you have no idea what you're talking about, and your last line just makes you seem spiteful. Then again, it's Kwark, so pettiness is to be expected. Shira: You referenced Schopenhauer and said you're currently in a MM relationship because you don't think it's possible to form an emotional relationship with women and you're criticizing my views on women? .... I'm calling you an asshole for being an asshole. If you don't want to respond to a big post someone put a lot of effort into then just don't respond to it. Saying you didn't read it then dismissing it as a histrionic rant is an asshole move. Stop being an asshole. And claiming that women exploit and abuse men is part of your "women are bad" theory which I summed up as inferior. Your refutation of "technically I think they're superior because they exploit and abuse men" is meaningless semantics given the wider bitching about women that you do. It'd be like a feminist bitching about how all men are evil because of domestic violence and then when called out as sexist claiming "technically I wasn't sexist because I claimed men are stronger which is a good thing". Okay, so to you asking a question is making a statement? And saying something is exploitative and abusive means it's inferior? Like how America is inferior to Kuwait. Right? And it's meaningless semantics to say men should engage in counter-strategies to deal with the female offensive because I go on to detail how they are offensive. Wait, no it's not. It makes total sense. You're just too busy trying to fit me into the misogynist box to actually read anything that's been said. It's absolutely NOT like a feminist bitching about how all men are evil. What it is, is a man stating there are major social trends at work in Western society that are pushing gender biases in favor of women. Now I know you're a hardcore white knight, but that doesn't give you the privilege of forcing your agenda on me and drawing ridiculous comparisons. Which is all you've been doing so far. Maybe you should go back and read the thread in a less prejudiced way, and you'd see that I never once claimed all women were evil. I \also already openly stated that my experiences are only with a certain subset of women, that I am personally drawn to fucked up women because of my own idiosyncrasies, and that I don't hate women as a gender, but rather the horribly distorted views on relationships and monogamy that Western culture has produced, the blame for which lies on society as a whole, not one gender. And just as a tip, you and that other guy should both learn that starting your posts with insults rarely generates a respectful response. And it's really not the respondent who's being an asshole when he does. SamsungStar's points imply misogyny even if they don't explictly state it. When you state : On February 18 2013 08:26 SamsungStar wrote:
women are opportunistic, heartless sharks. That's what I've been trying to tell other people in this thread including all women, you have to be a good lawyer to claim you didn't explicitly state misogyny, or that On February 20 2013 01:04 SamsungStar wrote:
I never once claimed all women were evil. You seem to have missed the fact that I stated men should also be opportunistic, heartless sharks, and that it isn't evil, simply competitive. You see misogyny has to imply that I'm saying something terrible about women. When I'm not. Capitalist societies, like many of those in the West,have taught that being heartless, opportunistic sharks is the most profitable and effective way to go about life. That's pretty much the core philosophy of capitalism: rationale, well-informed selfishness leads to the greatest quality of life for all. I have lamented the cruelty of such a life strategy. I have lamented the apparent irrationality that some women engage in when making these opportunistic decisions. I have lamented the legal environment which favors women in this power struggle, but at no point have I stated women are evil, inferior, etc anything that is misogynistic. Namely because I'm not a misogynist. Well put. Not really. Saying that all women are opportunistic, heartless sharks is misogynistic and strongly implies that they are evil (these are negative characteristics). Turning around and saying "ah yes, but then I say that all men should be just as evil to even the playing field" doesn't change the meaning of his first claim, that all women share this same group of negative characteristics. If I claimed all Jews were greedy and untrustworthy and then said that other people should also be greedy because capitalism and what is trust really anyway that wouldn't make my first claim not racist. SamsungStar makes broad and unproven negative generalisations about groups based on a mixture of bad science, anecdotal evidence and naked prejudice, hence why he resorts to meaningless deflections such as "white knight" when called out on it.
Kwark you seem unable to comprehend a viewpoint different from your own. I've stated quite clearly that I do not find heartless opportunism to be evil. Evil, to me, is cruelty for cruelty's sake. Harming others when there is no tangible benefit to one's self. Heartless opportunism, in a capitalistic society, is just being smart and playing by the rules. Just because you think those things are evil doesn't mean I think so. Therefore, what you find to be misogynist is not necessarily so. You should realize you're projecting your own views onto others, then judging them based on your own personal definition of things, which is an inherently illogical way of debating. For me to be misogynist, I would have to be accusing women of something I find to be negative.
And you continue with these horribly inaccurate analogies. I'm not sure why. I never claimed all women were this way, which is why your analogy is so bad. I did claim there is a social movement/trend currently encouraging women towards this sort of behavior, a change that is well documented by more authoritative sources than me.
You're trying to claim I made broad statements inclusive of all women, when I have from the very beginning made it clear that I am talking about social and cultural influences on modern women, and NOT statements about the fundamental nature of women. Hence why I continued on in the thread to make statements like wanting to find a more traditional wife with more traditional concepts of monogamy. If I was a misogynist, I would not want a wife at all and would say that all women are heartless sharks and not to be trusted. I never did and never will.
In summary, you continue to make specific and unproven prejudiced statements towards me based on nothing more than your own misguided notions of what I've said, which is why you continue to belabor the same point over and over with little more than a variance in sentence structure. To top it off, you end with yet another patently false statement. I've done a hell of a lot more than just respond with "white knight" to critiques.
|
United States41938 Posts
On February 20 2013 04:07 SamsungStar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2013 03:17 KwarK wrote:On February 20 2013 03:05 Shady Sands wrote:On February 20 2013 03:03 SamsungStar wrote:On February 20 2013 02:56 Thurken wrote:On February 20 2013 01:26 Shady Sands wrote:On February 20 2013 01:04 SamsungStar wrote:On February 19 2013 16:12 KwarK wrote:On February 19 2013 16:03 SamsungStar wrote:On February 19 2013 15:56 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
I'd say his view on the world is pretty much a mirror of the bullshit we call out man hating feminists on. All he's doing is claiming that the other gender is untrustworthy, motivated by shallow desires and ultimately inferior based upon anecdotal evidence and broad generalisations. It's bullshit when women do it about men and it's bullshit when men do it about women because the only real pattern that can be drawn is that some people are assholes. In this case SamsungStar with his "lol I didn't read your long post cause I'm too cool" is an asshole but let's avoid his mistake and not extrapolate that to all men. Don't call me an asshole for having opposing views. I've responded to dozens of other arguments in this thread already. I'm not going to waste time on a long post of canned arguments. And at what point did I ever say women were inferior? I've been saying the exact opposite, namely that they are superior and are outmaneuvering men in modern day relationships. In this case, you have no idea what you're talking about, and your last line just makes you seem spiteful. Then again, it's Kwark, so pettiness is to be expected. Shira: You referenced Schopenhauer and said you're currently in a MM relationship because you don't think it's possible to form an emotional relationship with women and you're criticizing my views on women? .... I'm calling you an asshole for being an asshole. If you don't want to respond to a big post someone put a lot of effort into then just don't respond to it. Saying you didn't read it then dismissing it as a histrionic rant is an asshole move. Stop being an asshole. And claiming that women exploit and abuse men is part of your "women are bad" theory which I summed up as inferior. Your refutation of "technically I think they're superior because they exploit and abuse men" is meaningless semantics given the wider bitching about women that you do. It'd be like a feminist bitching about how all men are evil because of domestic violence and then when called out as sexist claiming "technically I wasn't sexist because I claimed men are stronger which is a good thing". Okay, so to you asking a question is making a statement? And saying something is exploitative and abusive means it's inferior? Like how America is inferior to Kuwait. Right? And it's meaningless semantics to say men should engage in counter-strategies to deal with the female offensive because I go on to detail how they are offensive. Wait, no it's not. It makes total sense. You're just too busy trying to fit me into the misogynist box to actually read anything that's been said. It's absolutely NOT like a feminist bitching about how all men are evil. What it is, is a man stating there are major social trends at work in Western society that are pushing gender biases in favor of women. Now I know you're a hardcore white knight, but that doesn't give you the privilege of forcing your agenda on me and drawing ridiculous comparisons. Which is all you've been doing so far. Maybe you should go back and read the thread in a less prejudiced way, and you'd see that I never once claimed all women were evil. I \also already openly stated that my experiences are only with a certain subset of women, that I am personally drawn to fucked up women because of my own idiosyncrasies, and that I don't hate women as a gender, but rather the horribly distorted views on relationships and monogamy that Western culture has produced, the blame for which lies on society as a whole, not one gender. And just as a tip, you and that other guy should both learn that starting your posts with insults rarely generates a respectful response. And it's really not the respondent who's being an asshole when he does. SamsungStar's points imply misogyny even if they don't explictly state it. When you state : On February 18 2013 08:26 SamsungStar wrote:
women are opportunistic, heartless sharks. That's what I've been trying to tell other people in this thread including all women, you have to be a good lawyer to claim you didn't explicitly state misogyny, or that On February 20 2013 01:04 SamsungStar wrote:
I never once claimed all women were evil. You seem to have missed the fact that I stated men should also be opportunistic, heartless sharks, and that it isn't evil, simply competitive. You see misogyny has to imply that I'm saying something terrible about women. When I'm not. Capitalist societies, like many of those in the West,have taught that being heartless, opportunistic sharks is the most profitable and effective way to go about life. That's pretty much the core philosophy of capitalism: rationale, well-informed selfishness leads to the greatest quality of life for all. I have lamented the cruelty of such a life strategy. I have lamented the apparent irrationality that some women engage in when making these opportunistic decisions. I have lamented the legal environment which favors women in this power struggle, but at no point have I stated women are evil, inferior, etc anything that is misogynistic. Namely because I'm not a misogynist. Well put. Not really. Saying that all women are opportunistic, heartless sharks is misogynistic and strongly implies that they are evil (these are negative characteristics). Turning around and saying "ah yes, but then I say that all men should be just as evil to even the playing field" doesn't change the meaning of his first claim, that all women share this same group of negative characteristics. If I claimed all Jews were greedy and untrustworthy and then said that other people should also be greedy because capitalism and what is trust really anyway that wouldn't make my first claim not racist. SamsungStar makes broad and unproven negative generalisations about groups based on a mixture of bad science, anecdotal evidence and naked prejudice, hence why he resorts to meaningless deflections such as "white knight" when called out on it. Kwark you seem unable to comprehend a viewpoint different from your own. I've stated quite clearly that I do not find heartless opportunism to be evil. Evil, to me, is cruelty for cruelty's sake. Harming others when there is no tangible benefit to one's self. Heartless opportunism, in a capitalistic society, is just being smart and playing by the rules. Just because you think those things are evil doesn't mean I think so. Therefore, what you find to be misogynist is not necessarily so. You should realize you're projecting your own views onto others, then judging them based on your own personal definition of things, which is an inherently illogical way of debating. For me to be misogynist, I would have to be accusing women of something I find to be negative. And you continue with these horribly inaccurate analogies. I'm not sure why. I never claimed all women were this way, which is why your analogy is so bad. I did claim there is a social movement/trend currently encouraging women towards this sort of behavior, a change that is well documented by more authoritative sources than me. You're trying to claim I made broad statements inclusive of all women, when I have from the very beginning made it clear that I am talking about social and cultural influences on modern women, and NOT statements about the fundamental nature of women. Hence why I continued on in the thread to make statements like wanting to find a more traditional wife with more traditional concepts of monogamy. If I was a misogynist, I would not want a wife at all and would say that all women are heartless sharks and not to be trusted. I never did and never will. In summary, you continue to make specific and unproven prejudiced statements towards me based on nothing more than your own misguided notions of what I've said, which is why you continue to belabor the same point over and over with little more than a variance in sentence structure. To top it off, you end with yet another patently false statement. I've done a hell of a lot more than just respond with "white knight" to critiques.
"Jews are greedy and untrustworthy. Wait, why are you calling me racist, I didn't say greedy was bad, I don't mind greed, that's your projection on what I said".
Nope, it doesn't work that way. These are commonly understood to be negative attributes and, no matter how much you try to hide the implications of what you're saying, you must be aware that these are understood to be negative attributes. You're engaging in semantics but you're not nearly as clever as you think you are. If you wish to only be understood by yourself you can just think to yourself, you're writing on a forum using words which you intend to be read by others and therefore you pick the words which you think will best convey your meaning. If you pick descriptive words which have negative meanings in the minds of everyone but you then you are to blame for the negative meanings of what you wrote. If you want to talk to yourself in your own language then I recommend silence.
No source for this social movement other than a vague claim to an authority.
Regarding the fundamental nature of women, you have taken anecdotal evidence of women doing shitty things and then claimed that it is part of a wider problem of women being able to do things which you ultimately conclude is the issue, rather than the fact that some women do shitty things. Your conclusion is that if a society empowers women then they fuck men over, you actually make this argument when you say you want to move to a society that favours men and the traditional male dominated family to marry. If your argument is that an empowered woman will fuck you over then your starting assumption must be that all women want to fuck you over.
You've not added a shred of evidence in response to me describing your argument as weak anecdotal evidence coupled with bad science and naked prejudice. You strayed slightly into that region when you brought up some authority but didn't linger. You should work on that.
|
If you want to engage in blatant falsehoods, that's your choice. But don't expect me to agree with you. There's really nothing more to say in this situation. You can insist on your distorted version of reality and life will go on. I hope one day you understand that morality is subjective, and there is no such thing as a commonly understood definition of good and evil. It has nothing to do with cleverness. It has everything to do with your closed mind and your inability to see beyond absolute extremes. I recommend you work on that.
|
United States41938 Posts
Claiming that all women have a set of attributes that everyone but you understand to be negative doesn't make you not a sexist, it just makes you delusional. Sorry.
|
On February 20 2013 04:37 KwarK wrote:
Claiming that all women have a set of attributes that everyone but you understand to be negative doesn't make you not a sexist, it just makes you delusional. Sorry.
Who is this everyone you speak of? I can assure you that heartless opportunism is not seen as a bad thing in many circles I've traveled. In fact, it's lauded when it results in financial or political gain.
Nor did I ever claim that ALL women have these attributes. Seriously, what is wrong with you?
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 20 2013 04:34 SamsungStar wrote:
If you want to engage in blatant falsehoods, that's your choice. But don't expect me to agree with you. There's really nothing more to say in this situation. You can insist on your distorted version of reality and life will go on. I hope one day you understand that morality is subjective, and there is no such thing as a commonly understood definition of good and evil. It has nothing to do with cleverness. It has everything to do with your closed mind and your inability to see beyond absolute extremes. I recommend you work on that.
Morality is not subjective. Our understanding of it might be flawed and colored by our subjective bias, but people are wrong all the time about moral decisions. Newsflash: opinions can be wrong. There is such a thing as a stupid opinion. You should look into Consequentialism.
Just because you personally consider something to be not evil doesn't make it not evil. A delusional evil person might think he is doing good for women when he rapes them because they might bear his children, that doesn't make him not evil and it doesn't make him not delusional.
|
On February 20 2013 04:45 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2013 04:34 SamsungStar wrote:
If you want to engage in blatant falsehoods, that's your choice. But don't expect me to agree with you. There's really nothing more to say in this situation. You can insist on your distorted version of reality and life will go on. I hope one day you understand that morality is subjective, and there is no such thing as a commonly understood definition of good and evil. It has nothing to do with cleverness. It has everything to do with your closed mind and your inability to see beyond absolute extremes. I recommend you work on that. Morality is not subjective. Our understanding of it might be flawed and colored by our subjective bias, but people are wrong all the time about moral decisions. Newsflash: opinions can be wrong. There is such a thing as a stupid opinion. You should look into Consequentialism.
That is not what's being discussed here. Kwark and I have two different systems of valuation. He's insisting I made a negative remark based upon his own valuation system. I've repeatedly told him that in my valuation system it is not negative, it is simply an effective strategy for the current social climate. Therefore, what we have is a subjective difference in defining the value of terms, whereas he claims the terms are objective. This is not about whether or not an opinion is stupid. It is about the original intention behind the voicing of certain opinions.
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 20 2013 04:50 SamsungStar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2013 04:45 Whitewing wrote:On February 20 2013 04:34 SamsungStar wrote:
If you want to engage in blatant falsehoods, that's your choice. But don't expect me to agree with you. There's really nothing more to say in this situation. You can insist on your distorted version of reality and life will go on. I hope one day you understand that morality is subjective, and there is no such thing as a commonly understood definition of good and evil. It has nothing to do with cleverness. It has everything to do with your closed mind and your inability to see beyond absolute extremes. I recommend you work on that. Morality is not subjective. Our understanding of it might be flawed and colored by our subjective bias, but people are wrong all the time about moral decisions. Newsflash: opinions can be wrong. There is such a thing as a stupid opinion. You should look into Consequentialism. That is not what's being discussed here. Kwark and I have two different systems of valuation. He's insisting I made a negative remark based upon his own valuation system. I've repeatedly told him that in my valuation system it is not negative, it is simply an effective strategy for the current social climate. Therefore, what we have is a subjective difference in defining the value of terms, whereas he claims the terms are objective. This is not about whether or not an opinion is stupid. It is about the original intention behind the voicing of certain opinions.
But he's saying your valuation system is completely wrong (and has provided a compelling argument), which is therefore why your argument that your valuation systems are simply different is falling flat on its face. You are hereby in a situation where, in order to argue that your position is correct, you need to validate your own valuation system, which you have not done.
Relativity is completely idiotic. Just because you like your own valuation system does not make it equally valid to that of everyone else.
|
United States41938 Posts
On February 20 2013 04:50 SamsungStar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2013 04:45 Whitewing wrote:On February 20 2013 04:34 SamsungStar wrote:
If you want to engage in blatant falsehoods, that's your choice. But don't expect me to agree with you. There's really nothing more to say in this situation. You can insist on your distorted version of reality and life will go on. I hope one day you understand that morality is subjective, and there is no such thing as a commonly understood definition of good and evil. It has nothing to do with cleverness. It has everything to do with your closed mind and your inability to see beyond absolute extremes. I recommend you work on that. Morality is not subjective. Our understanding of it might be flawed and colored by our subjective bias, but people are wrong all the time about moral decisions. Newsflash: opinions can be wrong. There is such a thing as a stupid opinion. You should look into Consequentialism. That is not what's being discussed here. Kwark and I have two different systems of valuation. He's insisting I made a negative remark based upon his own valuation system. I've repeatedly told him that in my valuation system it is not negative, it is simply an effective strategy for the current social climate. Therefore, what we have is a subjective difference in defining the value of terms, whereas he claims the terms are objective. This is not about whether or not an opinion is stupid. It is about the original intention behind the voicing of certain opinions.
A subjective difference in which you think calling women heartless isn't in any way a criticism of them, especially when the topic of the conversation is their value in relationships and family life, and your defence of heartless being fine in relationships and family life is that many cutthroat businesses might encourage that behaviour in the corporate world.
Literally nothing about what you're saying makes any kind of sense. Heartless is always a criticism of their ability to form meaningful relationships because we associate the heart with love. And the worst part is you know that, that's why this is such a colossal waste of time, because you're trapped in this argument that being heartless isn't a negative attribute and don't know how to give in.
|
On February 20 2013 04:45 Whitewing wrote:
Morality is not subjective.
Sorry I don't want to get involved in this argument, as this thread has been derailed enough.
But I just saw this and said "what..."
I've never seen a convincing argument(read, non-religious) that morality is not, in some form, ,subjective. Sam Harris is currently doing an ok job of trying to link morality with science, but I don't think even he would claim he has removed all subjectivity from the issue.
I'm wondering who/where you got this idea from. You can just PM me if you want, so as not to clog up this thread more.
If your argument is going to involve religious inspiration then never mind. You'll just be wasting both our time.
|
Samsung...do you happen to be a fan of Nietzsche, Rand, nihilism, or anything similar?
|
On February 20 2013 04:52 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2013 04:50 SamsungStar wrote:On February 20 2013 04:45 Whitewing wrote:On February 20 2013 04:34 SamsungStar wrote:
If you want to engage in blatant falsehoods, that's your choice. But don't expect me to agree with you. There's really nothing more to say in this situation. You can insist on your distorted version of reality and life will go on. I hope one day you understand that morality is subjective, and there is no such thing as a commonly understood definition of good and evil. It has nothing to do with cleverness. It has everything to do with your closed mind and your inability to see beyond absolute extremes. I recommend you work on that. Morality is not subjective. Our understanding of it might be flawed and colored by our subjective bias, but people are wrong all the time about moral decisions. Newsflash: opinions can be wrong. There is such a thing as a stupid opinion. You should look into Consequentialism. That is not what's being discussed here. Kwark and I have two different systems of valuation. He's insisting I made a negative remark based upon his own valuation system. I've repeatedly told him that in my valuation system it is not negative, it is simply an effective strategy for the current social climate. Therefore, what we have is a subjective difference in defining the value of terms, whereas he claims the terms are objective. This is not about whether or not an opinion is stupid. It is about the original intention behind the voicing of certain opinions. But he's saying your valuation system is completely wrong (and has provided a compelling argument), which is therefore why your argument that your valuation systems are imply different is falling flat on its face. You are hereby in a situation where, in order to argue that your position is correct, you need to validate your own valuation system, which you have not done.
No, he really hasn't, seeing as he lives in the UK and enjoys a quality of life brought about by a capitalist country enriched by many centuries of heartless opportunism. I really don't think I need to make an argument for capitalism or for the accumulation of material wealth or for moving to a country where I have a better bargaining position. I'd think the virtues of making decisions for the benefit of one's self to be self-explanatory.
But, again, Kwark and I have butted heads on this issue multiple times before and we're never going to see eye-to-eye so there really isn't any point in continuing. I can probably already anticipate his counter-argument to what I've just said, which is that a citizen of a nation-state is not the nation-state and cannot be associated with or judged by the actions of the nation-state to which said citizen belongs. And I will never agree with him, because to me citizenship in a country is not compulsory. In today's day and age, you have choice. The choice that as a citizen with enough economic means to emigrate, you can opt out of the system and enter a new one. Therefore, by your continued participation and funding of said system as a tax-paying citizen, you are in fact an enabler and supporter of that nation's policies. And he'll tell me I'm wrong and crazy and an idiot and nobody agrees with me. And I'll tell him he's wrong.
So, really, let's just save everyone the trouble and accept that Kwark and I will never agree on much and that there is really no reason to get angry over people having different opinions. Just as he thinks it is wrong for me to get upset or complain that certain women hold different opinions than I do on what is a proper way to conduct or end a relationship.
|
On February 20 2013 04:52 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2013 04:50 SamsungStar wrote:On February 20 2013 04:45 Whitewing wrote:On February 20 2013 04:34 SamsungStar wrote:
If you want to engage in blatant falsehoods, that's your choice. But don't expect me to agree with you. There's really nothing more to say in this situation. You can insist on your distorted version of reality and life will go on. I hope one day you understand that morality is subjective, and there is no such thing as a commonly understood definition of good and evil. It has nothing to do with cleverness. It has everything to do with your closed mind and your inability to see beyond absolute extremes. I recommend you work on that. Morality is not subjective. Our understanding of it might be flawed and colored by our subjective bias, but people are wrong all the time about moral decisions. Newsflash: opinions can be wrong. There is such a thing as a stupid opinion. You should look into Consequentialism. That is not what's being discussed here. Kwark and I have two different systems of valuation. He's insisting I made a negative remark based upon his own valuation system. I've repeatedly told him that in my valuation system it is not negative, it is simply an effective strategy for the current social climate. Therefore, what we have is a subjective difference in defining the value of terms, whereas he claims the terms are objective. This is not about whether or not an opinion is stupid. It is about the original intention behind the voicing of certain opinions. But he's saying your valuation system is completely wrong (and has provided a compelling argument), which is therefore why your argument that your valuation systems are simply different is falling flat on its face. You are hereby in a situation where, in order to argue that your position is correct, you need to validate your own valuation system, which you have not done. Relativity is completely idiotic. Just because you like your own valuation system does not make it equally valid to that of everyone else.
You continue to miss the point. And that's far more idiotic than relativity. I did not claim my valuation system was equally valid. There's no way to even quantify the validity of any valuation system. What I did say is that if you call someone a misogynist the burden falls on you to prove that person had a negative intention behind his description of the female gender. That is where my valuation system comes into play, because to define my intentions one must use my valuation system, not their own.
|
On February 20 2013 04:40 SamsungStar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2013 04:37 KwarK wrote:
Claiming that all women have a set of attributes that everyone but you understand to be negative doesn't make you not a sexist, it just makes you delusional. Sorry. Who is this everyone you speak of? I can assure you that heartless opportunism is not seen as a bad thing in many circles I've traveled. In fact, it's lauded when it results in financial or political gain. Nor did I ever claim that ALL women have these attributes. Seriously, what is wrong with you?
"This is good advice, capslock and all. The only women I've seen not cheating are the ones who love food more than fucking. And those turn into whales." Taken from page 6 before you stated you only had experience with one kind of girls.
"Yeah, sers. My god. Notice the word used by the girl too: "excitement." Coz it's all just a dumb game to them. The whole stereotype of men being pigs and women being pining brides-to-be is such a crock of shit. From what I've seen, most women tend to be way more cold-hearted than men. I've seen a lot of guys just absolutely devastated by breakups and failed proposals etc. Girls, at worst, complain the guy isn't treating them right, and then fuck the next asshole who was waiting in the wings. Or the girl gets cheated on, cries for a week, and then yep, you guessed it, fucks the next asshole waiting in the wings. Because there's always one. There. Waiting. In da wingz." Taken from page 7 - whilst you are beginning to give us an idea of how horrible your taste in women actually is, you are still generalizing a fair bit. And interestingly enough, reading this post, even after all that has transpired since in this thread, I still get the notion that you think cold-hearted is a negative trait in regards to relationships.
Furthermore, when someone challenged your views you rejected his anecdote of living happily with a nice girlfriend as him "flexing his e-peen" but at the same time you want us to accept your anecdotes as the truth? I think your time is up.
|
On February 20 2013 04:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2013 04:50 SamsungStar wrote:On February 20 2013 04:45 Whitewing wrote:On February 20 2013 04:34 SamsungStar wrote:
If you want to engage in blatant falsehoods, that's your choice. But don't expect me to agree with you. There's really nothing more to say in this situation. You can insist on your distorted version of reality and life will go on. I hope one day you understand that morality is subjective, and there is no such thing as a commonly understood definition of good and evil. It has nothing to do with cleverness. It has everything to do with your closed mind and your inability to see beyond absolute extremes. I recommend you work on that. Morality is not subjective. Our understanding of it might be flawed and colored by our subjective bias, but people are wrong all the time about moral decisions. Newsflash: opinions can be wrong. There is such a thing as a stupid opinion. You should look into Consequentialism. That is not what's being discussed here. Kwark and I have two different systems of valuation. He's insisting I made a negative remark based upon his own valuation system. I've repeatedly told him that in my valuation system it is not negative, it is simply an effective strategy for the current social climate. Therefore, what we have is a subjective difference in defining the value of terms, whereas he claims the terms are objective. This is not about whether or not an opinion is stupid. It is about the original intention behind the voicing of certain opinions. A subjective difference in which you think calling women heartless isn't in any way a criticism of them, especially when the topic of the conversation is their value in relationships and family life, and your defence of heartless being fine in relationships and family life is that many cutthroat businesses might encourage that behaviour in the corporate world. Literally nothing about what you're saying makes any kind of sense. Heartless is always a criticism of their ability to form meaningful relationships because we associate the heart with love. And the worst part is you know that, that's why this is such a colossal waste of time, because you're trapped in this argument that being heartless isn't a negative attribute and don't know how to give in.
Yes, you're right. Heartlessness is a criticism of their ability to form meaningful relationships. But it is not a critique of them altogether as a human being. I can say someone is a fantastic artist and they get really caught up in their own world when they are painting portraits, but they are absolutely terrible at pet-sitting. Just as a woman might be expert at fulfilling her own needs, but not very good at being a girlfriend.
It is no more than a critique of ONE of their many roles as an individual, not a denunciation of them altogether. And I have repeatedly stated that this behavior is not encompassing of all women, nor that it is inherent in their nature, but rather that society, culture, and the current legal framework in America is encouraging that sort of behavior. It is no worse than saying if you build it, they will come.
If you take the bold step to label me a misogynist, the burden is on you to prove there is irrational, monolithic hate expressed by me. Otherwise, you're being irresponsible in your accusations.
|
United States41938 Posts
On February 20 2013 05:02 SamsungStar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2013 04:52 Whitewing wrote:On February 20 2013 04:50 SamsungStar wrote:On February 20 2013 04:45 Whitewing wrote:On February 20 2013 04:34 SamsungStar wrote:
If you want to engage in blatant falsehoods, that's your choice. But don't expect me to agree with you. There's really nothing more to say in this situation. You can insist on your distorted version of reality and life will go on. I hope one day you understand that morality is subjective, and there is no such thing as a commonly understood definition of good and evil. It has nothing to do with cleverness. It has everything to do with your closed mind and your inability to see beyond absolute extremes. I recommend you work on that. Morality is not subjective. Our understanding of it might be flawed and colored by our subjective bias, but people are wrong all the time about moral decisions. Newsflash: opinions can be wrong. There is such a thing as a stupid opinion. You should look into Consequentialism. That is not what's being discussed here. Kwark and I have two different systems of valuation. He's insisting I made a negative remark based upon his own valuation system. I've repeatedly told him that in my valuation system it is not negative, it is simply an effective strategy for the current social climate. Therefore, what we have is a subjective difference in defining the value of terms, whereas he claims the terms are objective. This is not about whether or not an opinion is stupid. It is about the original intention behind the voicing of certain opinions. But he's saying your valuation system is completely wrong (and has provided a compelling argument), which is therefore why your argument that your valuation systems are imply different is falling flat on its face. You are hereby in a situation where, in order to argue that your position is correct, you need to validate your own valuation system, which you have not done. No, he really hasn't, seeing as he lives in the UK and enjoys a quality of life brought about by a capitalist country enriched by many centuries of heartless opportunism. I really don't think I need to make an argument for capitalism or for the accumulation of material wealth or for moving to a country where I have a better bargaining position. I'd think the virtues of making decisions for the benefit of one's self to be self-explanatory. But, again, Kwark and I have butted heads on this issue multiple times before and we're never going to see eye-to-eye so there really isn't any point in continuing. I can probably already anticipate his counter-argument to what I've just said, which is that a citizen of a nation-state is not the nation-state and cannot be associated with or judged by the actions of the nation-state to which said citizen belongs. And I will never agree with him, because to me citizenship in a country is not compulsory. In today's day and age, you have choice. The choice that as a citizen with enough economic means to emigrate, you can opt out of the system and enter a new one. Therefore, by your continued participation and funding of said system as a tax-paying citizen, you are in fact an enabler and supporter of that nation's policies. And he'll tell me I'm wrong and crazy and an idiot and nobody agrees with me. And I'll tell him he's wrong. So, really, let's just save everyone the trouble and accept that Kwark and I will never agree on much and that there is really no reason to get angry over people having different opinions. Just as he thinks it is wrong for me to get upset or complain that certain women hold different opinions than I do on what is a proper way to conduct or end a relationship.
Relationships should not be run in the same manner that the British Empire was accumulated. Again, I'm not entirely sure how you're thinking this is a matter of opinion. You're getting increasingly absurd now but I think your logic, as best as I can follow it, goes as follows.
Being heartless in a relationship and with your family isn't bad because...
- heartless isn't always bad, actually in the corporate world it can be quite handy and remember the old saying "treat your children like you treat your hated business rivals"
- capitalism is heartless, the British Empire involved capitalism, you're British and therefore you are the British Empire (you disagree on this but I'm going to pre-emptively say I know you disagree so that I can make that logical jump without anyone complaining) and therefore, through the transitive property, you are capitalism and therefore heartless and therefore you agree with heartless and therefore you are me.
|
On February 20 2013 05:07 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2013 04:40 SamsungStar wrote:On February 20 2013 04:37 KwarK wrote:
Claiming that all women have a set of attributes that everyone but you understand to be negative doesn't make you not a sexist, it just makes you delusional. Sorry. Who is this everyone you speak of? I can assure you that heartless opportunism is not seen as a bad thing in many circles I've traveled. In fact, it's lauded when it results in financial or political gain. Nor did I ever claim that ALL women have these attributes. Seriously, what is wrong with you? "This is good advice, capslock and all. The only women I've seen not cheating are the ones who love food more than fucking. And those turn into whales." Taken from page 6 before you stated you only had experience with one kind of girls. "Yeah, sers. My god. Notice the word used by the girl too: "excitement." Coz it's all just a dumb game to them. The whole stereotype of men being pigs and women being pining brides-to-be is such a crock of shit. From what I've seen, most women tend to be way more cold-hearted than men. I've seen a lot of guys just absolutely devastated by breakups and failed proposals etc. Girls, at worst, complain the guy isn't treating them right, and then fuck the next asshole who was waiting in the wings. Or the girl gets cheated on, cries for a week, and then yep, you guessed it, fucks the next asshole waiting in the wings. Because there's always one. There. Waiting. In da wingz." Taken from page 7 - whilst you are beginning to give us an idea of how horrible your taste in women actually is, you are still generalizing a fair bit. And interestingly enough, reading this post, even after all that has transpired since in this thread, I still get the notion that you think cold-hearted is a negative trait in regards to relationships. Furthermore, when someone challenged your views you rejected his anecdote of living happily with a nice girlfriend as him "flexing his e-peen" but at the same time you want us to accept your anecdotes as the truth? I think your time is up.
Can you point out to me the point in there where I said all women? And uh yeah, I've said from the very beginning that cold-hearted opportunism is BAD for relationships. What it's NOT bad for is the woman's own self-interests. There is a huge difference between the two. Hence, why from the beginning I've advocated men also turn to cold-hearted opportunism to advance THEIR own self-interests, because we live in a society that promotes self-interest.
Your analysis is just awful. So is your interpretation of my dialogue with Kukaracha. He was flexing his e-peen when he made several derisive remarks towards me and talked about how successful he is in life, etc. Had nothing to do with living happily with a nice gf. But cherrypicking to push your own agenda is obviously your drug of choice, so keep on keeping on.
|
Can't we just ignore SamsungStar because he's never going to admit to being wrong anyway :p
|
This thread has too much arguing and gender politics, and not enough stories. I'll tell my 2nd worst breakup story to get us back on track. This one's far less depressing than my last one, I promise.
Intro:
+ Show Spoiler +In my early 20s I was fairly into blogging, and one of the blogs I happened to friend back then was a woman named Charlotte, who happened to live fairly close by. We tossed flirty messages back and forth for months before deciding to meet up. On Valentine's Day of all days for a first date. Well, when I met up with her, let's just say her photo didn't match her appearance for one, and she's definitely one of the types that had to be in front of her keyboard and have time to think up something witty -- she was quite slow on her feet. I went to her apartment to pick her up, and got to sit and chill with her roommates while she was getting ready. One of the girls she was living with was named Anne. Anne, on the other hand, had a sharp tongue and the geek cred to match -- I saw Dragonlance novels on the bookshelf, and when she claimed they were hers, I knew I had to get to know her a little better.
Went to see a movie (nooooooooo) with Charlotte (double nooooooooo) and it was 2 hours of just pure misery. Not to mention I'd already seen the movie before, but being Valentine's Day, the only movie she wanted to see was Hitch. Being a gentleman, I toughed it out. Needless to say, Charlotte and I weren't clicking at all. Did I mention that through this whole day I was fighting a headcold and trying to find a good excuse to go home?
I ended up somehow spending the whole day at their apartment, playing cards, board games, watching movies, etc. At one point, there ended up being a water pistol fight where Anne and myself got teamed up against Charlotte and their other roommate. Well, we got holed up in her bedroom holding off the onslaught, got to talking, and before we knew it, the rest of the house was asleep. Anne and I talked until something like 3am, where we kissed (and yes, she totally caught my cold and was sick for a week after this -- of which I heard no end of.) and I left.
Intro TL;DR: Pulled off a perfectly executed roommate switch on the day I met her. It was a thing of beauty.
---------------------------------------------------
Story to break-up:
+ Show Spoiler +Anne was every bit the geek I expected her to be -- very much a bookworm, played D&D, gaming nerd, the whole works. She was also devoutly religious. Problem for some, but being the same religion as she, plus being in an area where that's pretty much the norm, wasn't even an issue.
Until about a month later...
We'd been on a few dates by then, had fooled around a bit, and I could tell I was the more experienced of the two this time around (as in, she had zero). One night, we got back from a date night at the local gaming store, the mood was just right, we started making out, and really getting into it. All of her roommates were gone, home for the weekend or something, where we knew we had the place to ourselves.
I led her into the bedroom, we started stripping each other down, I went down on her, she went down on me (her first time, had to guide her a bit), and then when I was about to move things a little further....
"WAIT, wait wait, hold on..."
Both of us naked, sweating, turned on, she's wet as can be and I'm ready to go myself, and she goes on a diatribe about how she really believes she should save herself for marriage (not completely unexpected....), and how she didn't think she could help herself around me (ok.....?), and that she needed to break it off with me before she did something she would regret. (...............)
How exactly do you react to that? I mean, we'd only been dating a month, so I hadn't had time to become really "in love" or anything yet, but maybe you could come to that conclusion sometime *before* we're naked and about to have sex, right?
Of course, I got dressed, while she's sitting there just repeating how sorry she is, and how she "couldn't stand to be touched by anyone, until she met me and I changed all that" and all this stuff, but was still breaking up with me. It was an extremely awkward few minutes, for sure.
I haven't talked to her since that night, but from what I hear from our mutual friends, she ended up marrying the next guy she dated in something like 4 months. And divorcing him a year later.
Less attachment, shorter story, that's why it doesn't make the #1. Thinking now, this might actually be #3 or 4 on the list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
