Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Context & tunnel vision

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 7:24:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I notice that allot of people seem to take quotes out of context, focusing on a small section of the quote, and using it in a way that contradicts the context of the whole text.
This is common not only with source quotes, but also with replies to what other people say. This is not only something that occurs on DDO, but it also occurs in everyday society.

I think this is a major issue in society. People no longer look at the whole picture, the whole concept, or the whole of anything. They focus only on a section and ignore everything else. This is not only true in regards to reading and listening, but also in regards to what people notice in their environment. Someone can completely ignore a clown in the corner of the room, because they are not looking for the clown.

I can't tell you how many times I had to provide additional text to a quote in my debates, because my opponent's quote was cropped and out of context.
I can't tell you how many times I had to correct someone on a document, because they focused on one word and ignored the rest of the sentence, or they spewed a sentence they thought confirmed their beliefs while ignored certain words within the sentence that changed the entire context of the sentence.

I'm sick of people taking things out of context, and I'm sick of the epidemic of tunnel vision; it seems to be a major problem in today's society.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 8:26:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You mean like going to a page devoted to feminist marxist literature and using it to argue that Communism leads to women to knowingly lose the ability to consent to sex as well as the ability to choose why they have sex?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 8:29:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 8:26:25 PM, Wnope wrote:
You mean like going to a page devoted to feminist marxist literature and using it to argue that Communism leads to women to knowingly lose the ability to consent to sex as well as the ability to choose why they have sex?

+1
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 8:35:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 8:26:25 PM, Wnope wrote:
You mean like going to a page devoted to feminist marxist literature and using it to argue that Communism leads to women to knowingly lose the ability to consent to sex as well as the ability to choose why they have sex?

They were condemning consent; that's what the article was about.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 9:03:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 8:35:54 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/28/2012 8:26:25 PM, Wnope wrote:
You mean like going to a page devoted to feminist marxist literature and using it to argue that Communism leads to women to knowingly lose the ability to consent to sex as well as the ability to choose why they have sex?

They were condemning consent; that's what the article was about.

Wow....

They were saying that the modern definition of "rape" uses consent as a necessary and sufficient condition. Engels would argue that consent is necessary, but also there must be a lack of all influences that would otherwise inhibit relations that would develop due to "mutual inclinations."

It condemns the use of consent as being the only condition to qualify if rape has occured.

That's the article.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 9:13:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Tunnel vision as in your last 4 threads pertaining to communism/socialism? You do realize there's only one communist who even frequents the politics forum regularly - royalpaladin.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 9:20:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 9:13:41 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Tunnel vision as in your last 4 threads pertaining to communism/socialism? You do realize there's only one communist who even frequents the politics forum regularly - royalpaladin.

So? That doesn't mean I can't discuss it.
Tunnel vision means one focuses on one thing so much that they can't see the surrounding objects.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 9:27:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 9:20:20 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/28/2012 9:13:41 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Tunnel vision as in your last 4 threads pertaining to communism/socialism? You do realize there's only one communist who even frequents the politics forum regularly - royalpaladin.

So? That doesn't mean I can't discuss it.
Tunnel vision means one focuses on one thing so much that they can't see the surrounding objects.

Of course you can talk about it, but it's just the fact that your last few threads have been basically fixated on the issue of the evilness of socialism (and how it allows rape even though Wnope has utterly demolished you on this issue.) It's really quite anachronistic - none of us are really socialists, nor is socialism even much of an issue in the 21st century.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 9:41:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Works both ways, there is also the problem of people using quotes then some one else saying you are taking it out of context, but it isn't out of context.

"According to the bible God killed babies"

"Your taking the bible out of context"
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 9:50:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 9:03:31 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/28/2012 8:35:54 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/28/2012 8:26:25 PM, Wnope wrote:
You mean like going to a page devoted to feminist marxist literature and using it to argue that Communism leads to women to knowingly lose the ability to consent to sex as well as the ability to choose why they have sex?

They were condemning consent; that's what the article was about.

Wow....

They were saying that the modern definition of "rape" uses consent as a necessary and sufficient condition. Engels would argue that consent is necessary, but also there must be a lack of all influences that would otherwise inhibit relations that would develop due to "mutual inclinations."

They were condemning consent in general; read the whole article.
You kept using small quotes from that article, whereas I provided several paragraphs. You focused on bits and pieces that you believed showed the article was trying to promote consent, when the overall premise was that consent is meaningless. They put forward that under capitalism rape is interpreted as "mutual inclination", as observed by the author, because the author believed that consent under modern capitalism was not enough, due to statutory rape and the fact one can be arrested for raping their wives (the author interpreted marriage as a form of consent in the article)

The author than went on to mention that Engels said that marriage ignores "mutual inclination"; mutual inclination being a mutual instinct.

This is how the word "inclination" was used back in those days.

"I shall indulge the inclination so natural in old men, to be talking of themselves" ~ Benjamin Franklin

"The inclination to share thoughts with one another is probably an original impulse of our nature.If in pain I wish to let you know it,and ask your sympathy and assistance;and my pleasurable emotions also,I wish to communicate to,and share with you." ~ Abraham Lincoln

"Taste may change, but inclination never." ~ Francois De La Rochefoucauld

"Lives are changed by a moment's listening to conscience, by a single and quiet inclination of the mind." ~ George A Smith quotes

Inclinations have to do with instinct and impulse; it has nothing to do with rational thought, or in that matter consent.

It condemns the use of consent as being the only condition to qualify if rape has occured.

That's the article.
It condemns consent in general
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 9:53:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 9:27:29 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/28/2012 9:20:20 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/28/2012 9:13:41 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Tunnel vision as in your last 4 threads pertaining to communism/socialism? You do realize there's only one communist who even frequents the politics forum regularly - royalpaladin.

So? That doesn't mean I can't discuss it.
Tunnel vision means one focuses on one thing so much that they can't see the surrounding objects.

Of course you can talk about it, but it's just the fact that your last few threads have been basically fixated on the issue of the evilness of socialism (and how it allows rape even though Wnope has utterly demolished you on this issue.)

A.) the thread was about it being slavery; you guys turned it into a thread about rape
B.) He did not, you were just on his side from the start, and are thus bias.

It's really quite anachronistic - none of us are really socialists, nor is socialism even much of an issue in the 21st century.

Actually it is an issue of the 21st century. Also not all socialists are Marxists.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 10:38:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 9:50:47 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/28/2012 9:03:31 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/28/2012 8:35:54 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/28/2012 8:26:25 PM, Wnope wrote:
You mean like going to a page devoted to feminist marxist literature and using it to argue that Communism leads to women to knowingly lose the ability to consent to sex as well as the ability to choose why they have sex?

They were condemning consent; that's what the article was about.

Wow....

They were saying that the modern definition of "rape" uses consent as a necessary and sufficient condition. Engels would argue that consent is necessary, but also there must be a lack of all influences that would otherwise inhibit relations that would develop due to "mutual inclinations."

They were condemning consent in general; read the whole article.
You kept using small quotes from that article, whereas I provided several paragraphs. You focused on bits and pieces that you believed showed the article was trying to promote consent, when the overall premise was that consent is meaningless. They put forward that under capitalism rape is interpreted as "mutual inclination", as observed by the author, because the author believed that consent under modern capitalism was not enough, due to statutory rape and the fact one can be arrested for raping their wives (the author interpreted marriage as a form of consent in the article)

The author than went on to mention that Engels said that marriage ignores "mutual inclination"; mutual inclination being a mutual instinct.

This is how the word "inclination" was used back in those days.

"I shall indulge the inclination so natural in old men, to be talking of themselves" ~ Benjamin Franklin

"The inclination to share thoughts with one another is probably an original impulse of our nature.If in pain I wish to let you know it,and ask your sympathy and assistance;and my pleasurable emotions also,I wish to communicate to,and share with you." ~ Abraham Lincoln

"Taste may change, but inclination never." ~ Francois De La Rochefoucauld

"Lives are changed by a moment's listening to conscience, by a single and quiet inclination of the mind." ~ George A Smith quotes

Inclinations have to do with instinct and impulse; it has nothing to do with rational thought, or in that matter consent.

It condemns the use of consent as being the only condition to qualify if rape has occured.

That's the article.
It condemns consent in general

Amazing.

Listen to yourself.

You are saying that a Maoist decided to write a series of article devoted to CATHARINE MACKINNON (gender activist) and how much the patriarchy suxors, and within this series of papers, the author decided to write a paper where he/she states that if he/she had her way, the ideal system of government would be one where women have no choice as to whether or not they have sex, and they have no choice as to why they have sex.

This is a site SO feminist that they freaking spell "women" as "wimmim."

You do realize that the title 'all sex is rape' comes from a quote supposedly from Catharine MacKinnon, right?

Catharine "Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law" MacKinnon.

WNOPE'S EXPLANATION:

The article is a Marxist feminist defending MacKinnon's quote by citing Engel's belief that you must first separate people from monetary influences before sexual interaction, consensual or not, may be called anything but rape.

DANT'S EXPLANATION:

A webmaster accidentally linked a Maoist article about why non-consensual sex isn't really rape to another site article about Katherine MacKinnon, and by accident the title of this Maoist article involves a quote Katherine MacKinnon is famous for.

This Feminist Maoist article goes at length to argue that under an ideal government, women (wimmim) no longer have the ability to give or not give consent for sex acts, and they would no longer be able to choose why they have sex.

And, silly webmaster, it turns out the same quote "All sex is rape" is part of another article on the same site (http://www.prisoncensorship.info...), this one devoted to citations from "The Death of Feminism: What's Next in the Struggle for Women's Freedom."

Context, DanT.

Context.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 10:57:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
B.) He did not, you were just on his side from the start, and are thus bias.

Hell will freeze over before you ever admit you were wrong. Prove me wrong now and cut your losses with Wnope. At least in that case you'd have proved me wrong.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 9:34:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 10:38:15 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/28/2012 9:50:47 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/28/2012 9:03:31 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/28/2012 8:35:54 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/28/2012 8:26:25 PM, Wnope wrote:
You mean like going to a page devoted to feminist marxist literature and using it to argue that Communism leads to women to knowingly lose the ability to consent to sex as well as the ability to choose why they have sex?

They were condemning consent; that's what the article was about.

Wow....

They were saying that the modern definition of "rape" uses consent as a necessary and sufficient condition. Engels would argue that consent is necessary, but also there must be a lack of all influences that would otherwise inhibit relations that would develop due to "mutual inclinations."

They were condemning consent in general; read the whole article.
You kept using small quotes from that article, whereas I provided several paragraphs. You focused on bits and pieces that you believed showed the article was trying to promote consent, when the overall premise was that consent is meaningless. They put forward that under capitalism rape is interpreted as "mutual inclination", as observed by the author, because the author believed that consent under modern capitalism was not enough, due to statutory rape and the fact one can be arrested for raping their wives (the author interpreted marriage as a form of consent in the article)

The author than went on to mention that Engels said that marriage ignores "mutual inclination"; mutual inclination being a mutual instinct.

This is how the word "inclination" was used back in those days.

"I shall indulge the inclination so natural in old men, to be talking of themselves" ~ Benjamin Franklin

"The inclination to share thoughts with one another is probably an original impulse of our nature.If in pain I wish to let you know it,and ask your sympathy and assistance;and my pleasurable emotions also,I wish to communicate to,and share with you." ~ Abraham Lincoln

"Taste may change, but inclination never." ~ Francois De La Rochefoucauld

"Lives are changed by a moment's listening to conscience, by a single and quiet inclination of the mind." ~ George A Smith quotes

Inclinations have to do with instinct and impulse; it has nothing to do with rational thought, or in that matter consent.

It condemns the use of consent as being the only condition to qualify if rape has occured.

That's the article.
It condemns consent in general

Amazing.

Listen to yourself.

You are saying that a Maoist decided to write a series of article devoted to CATHARINE MACKINNON (gender activist) and how much the patriarchy suxors, and within this series of papers, the author decided to write a paper where he/she states that if he/she had her way, the ideal system of government would be one where women have no choice as to whether or not they have sex, and they have no choice as to why they have sex.


Marxist don't believe in consent for man or women. Why do you focus on the women when a the man is also raped?
What Marxists believe in is mutual instinct, which does not involve thought on the matter, and acts to serve the species as a whole.

To capitalists both parties are raped due to lack of consent, to Marxists they are not raped, because they both had the instinct to have sex.

This is a site SO feminist that they freaking spell "women" as "wimmim."

You do realize that the title 'all sex is rape' comes from a quote supposedly from Catharine MacKinnon, right?

Catharine "Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law" MacKinnon.

What does this have to do with anything. You seem to believe that only women can be raped; that is a very sexist belief on your part.
WNOPE'S EXPLANATION:

The article is a Marxist feminist defending MacKinnon's quote by citing Engel's belief that you must first separate people from monetary influences before sexual interaction, consensual or not, may be called anything but rape.

He never claimed that consent would exist after the abolition of money, that is assumed on your part.
DANT'S EXPLANATION:

A webmaster accidentally linked a Maoist article about why non-consensual sex isn't really rape to another site article about Katherine MacKinnon, and by accident the title of this Maoist article involves a quote Katherine MacKinnon is famous for.

nice strawman
This Feminist Maoist article goes at length to argue that under an ideal government, women (wimmim) no longer have the ability to give or not give consent for sex acts, and they would no longer be able to choose why they have sex.

It would be decided by mutual instinct, not consent. Furthermore, why do you repetitively focus on the women, when the man is also being raped?
No matter how many times I point that out, you drop it and focus on the women again.
And, silly webmaster, it turns out the same quote "All sex is rape" is part of another article on the same site (http://www.prisoncensorship.info...), this one devoted to citations from "The Death of Feminism: What's Next in the Struggle for Women's Freedom."

Context, DanT.

Context.
Why do you repetitively strawman my arguments?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 9:42:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 10:57:51 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
B.) He did not, you were just on his side from the start, and are thus bias.

Hell will freeze over before you ever admit you were wrong. Prove me wrong now and cut your losses with Wnope. At least in that case you'd have proved me wrong.

There have been times I have admitted I was wrong. But in this case, you guys are just too bias to believe anything other than your preexisting notions of what Marxism is.

I don't know how many times I had to repeat the same thing, over and over, because you people could not retain the information.

You guys seem to thing inclination = consent, when it clearly does not. You people seem to think that only women may be raped, which is one of the most sexist beliefs I ever heard. You people take everything out of context, and than claim a win, because you managed to mold a square peg in order to fit n a round hole.

I'm getting really sick of the same people pulling this same garbage. I have already decided long again I will not debate with you again OMG, because you twist everything out of context, to a point where a resolution is meaningless, and contradictions become synonymous.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 10:06:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm getting really sick of the same people pulling this same garbage. I have already decided long again I will not debate with you again OMG, because you twist everything out of context, to a point where a resolution is meaningless, and contradictions become synonymous.

I love how this all goes back to our debate and my highly controversial contention that someone who is poor and disabled perhaps does not, in substance, have "equal opportunity" with someone from the middle class who goes to an elite private school and is insanely intelligent. Perhaps someday you'll realize that life is not fair, or that it's not always the best and hardest working who rise to the top.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 10:10:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 10:06:41 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I'm getting really sick of the same people pulling this same garbage. I have already decided long again I will not debate with you again OMG, because you twist everything out of context, to a point where a resolution is meaningless, and contradictions become synonymous.

I love how this all goes back to our debate and my highly controversial contention that someone who is poor and disabled perhaps does not, in substance, have "equal opportunity" with someone from the middle class who goes to an elite private school and is insanely intelligent. Perhaps someday you'll realize that life is not fair, or that it's not always the best and hardest working who rise to the top.

The resolution was not that a poor person has an equal opportunity to become rich as someone from the middle class. The resolution was that everyone has an equal opportunity to move up in their social class. Poor to Middle class, Middle Class to Rich.
This is my point exactly; you twist things to a point where a resolution loses all meaning.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 10:14:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 10:10:17 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/29/2012 10:06:41 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I'm getting really sick of the same people pulling this same garbage. I have already decided long again I will not debate with you again OMG, because you twist everything out of context, to a point where a resolution is meaningless, and contradictions become synonymous.

I love how this all goes back to our debate and my highly controversial contention that someone who is poor and disabled perhaps does not, in substance, have "equal opportunity" with someone from the middle class who goes to an elite private school and is insanely intelligent. Perhaps someday you'll realize that life is not fair, or that it's not always the best and hardest working who rise to the top.

The resolution was not that a poor person has an equal opportunity to become rich as someone from the middle class. The resolution was that everyone has an equal opportunity to move up in their social class. Poor to Middle class, Middle Class to Rich.
This is my point exactly; you twist things to a point where a resolution loses all meaning.

I'm aware of that. My point stands.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 10:18:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 10:14:11 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/29/2012 10:10:17 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/29/2012 10:06:41 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I'm getting really sick of the same people pulling this same garbage. I have already decided long again I will not debate with you again OMG, because you twist everything out of context, to a point where a resolution is meaningless, and contradictions become synonymous.

I love how this all goes back to our debate and my highly controversial contention that someone who is poor and disabled perhaps does not, in substance, have "equal opportunity" with someone from the middle class who goes to an elite private school and is insanely intelligent. Perhaps someday you'll realize that life is not fair, or that it's not always the best and hardest working who rise to the top.

The resolution was not that a poor person has an equal opportunity to become rich as someone from the middle class. The resolution was that everyone has an equal opportunity to move up in their social class. Poor to Middle class, Middle Class to Rich.
This is my point exactly; you twist things to a point where a resolution loses all meaning.

I'm aware of that. My point stands.

It's kinda funny how you think everyone who doesn't agree with you is "controversial"
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 10:23:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 10:18:05 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/29/2012 10:14:11 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/29/2012 10:10:17 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/29/2012 10:06:41 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I'm getting really sick of the same people pulling this same garbage. I have already decided long again I will not debate with you again OMG, because you twist everything out of context, to a point where a resolution is meaningless, and contradictions become synonymous.

I love how this all goes back to our debate and my highly controversial contention that someone who is poor and disabled perhaps does not, in substance, have "equal opportunity" with someone from the middle class who goes to an elite private school and is insanely intelligent. Perhaps someday you'll realize that life is not fair, or that it's not always the best and hardest working who rise to the top.

The resolution was not that a poor person has an equal opportunity to become rich as someone from the middle class. The resolution was that everyone has an equal opportunity to move up in their social class. Poor to Middle class, Middle Class to Rich.
This is my point exactly; you twist things to a point where a resolution loses all meaning.

I'm aware of that. My point stands.

It's kinda funny how you think everyone who doesn't agree with you is "controversial"

I don't know where you're getting that.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 10:43:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 9:34:20 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/28/2012 10:38:15 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/28/2012 9:50:47 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/28/2012 9:03:31 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/28/2012 8:35:54 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/28/2012 8:26:25 PM, Wnope wrote:
You mean like going to a page devoted to feminist marxist literature and using it to argue that Communism leads to women to knowingly lose the ability to consent to sex as well as the ability to choose why they have sex?

They were condemning consent; that's what the article was about.

Wow....

They were saying that the modern definition of "rape" uses consent as a necessary and sufficient condition. Engels would argue that consent is necessary, but also there must be a lack of all influences that would otherwise inhibit relations that would develop due to "mutual inclinations."

They were condemning consent in general; read the whole article.
You kept using small quotes from that article, whereas I provided several paragraphs. You focused on bits and pieces that you believed showed the article was trying to promote consent, when the overall premise was that consent is meaningless. They put forward that under capitalism rape is interpreted as "mutual inclination", as observed by the author, because the author believed that consent under modern capitalism was not enough, due to statutory rape and the fact one can be arrested for raping their wives (the author interpreted marriage as a form of consent in the article)

The author than went on to mention that Engels said that marriage ignores "mutual inclination"; mutual inclination being a mutual instinct.

This is how the word "inclination" was used back in those days.

"I shall indulge the inclination so natural in old men, to be talking of themselves" ~ Benjamin Franklin

"The inclination to share thoughts with one another is probably an original impulse of our nature.If in pain I wish to let you know it,and ask your sympathy and assistance;and my pleasurable emotions also,I wish to communicate to,and share with you." ~ Abraham Lincoln

"Taste may change, but inclination never." ~ Francois De La Rochefoucauld

"Lives are changed by a moment's listening to conscience, by a single and quiet inclination of the mind." ~ George A Smith quotes

Inclinations have to do with instinct and impulse; it has nothing to do with rational thought, or in that matter consent.

It condemns the use of consent as being the only condition to qualify if rape has occured.

That's the article.
It condemns consent in general

Amazing.

Listen to yourself.

You are saying that a Maoist decided to write a series of article devoted to CATHARINE MACKINNON (gender activist) and how much the patriarchy suxors, and within this series of papers, the author decided to write a paper where he/she states that if he/she had her way, the ideal system of government would be one where women have no choice as to whether or not they have sex, and they have no choice as to why they have sex.


Marxist don't believe in consent for man or women. Why do you focus on the women when a the man is also raped?
What Marxists believe in is mutual instinct, which does not involve thought on the matter, and acts to serve the species as a whole.

To capitalists both parties are raped due to lack of consent, to Marxists they are not raped, because they both had the instinct to have sex.



This is a site SO feminist that they freaking spell "women" as "wimmim."

You do realize that the title 'all sex is rape' comes from a quote supposedly from Catharine MacKinnon, right?

Catharine "Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law" MacKinnon.

What does this have to do with anything. You seem to believe that only women can be raped; that is a very sexist belief on your part.
WNOPE'S EXPLANATION:

The article is a Marxist feminist defending MacKinnon's quote by citing Engel's belief that you must first separate people from monetary influences before sexual interaction, consensual or not, may be called anything but rape.

He never claimed that consent would exist after the abolition of money, that is assumed on your part.
DANT'S EXPLANATION:

A webmaster accidentally linked a Maoist article about why non-consensual sex isn't really rape to another site article about Katherine MacKinnon, and by accident the title of this Maoist article involves a quote Katherine MacKinnon is famous for.

nice strawman
This Feminist Maoist article goes at length to argue that under an ideal government, women (wimmim) no longer have the ability to give or not give consent for sex acts, and they would no longer be able to choose why they have sex.

It would be decided by mutual instinct, not consent. Furthermore, why do you repetitively focus on the women, when the man is also being raped?
No matter how many times I point that out, you drop it and focus on the women again.
And, silly webmaster, it turns out the same quote "All sex is rape" is part of another article on the same site (http://www.prisoncensorship.info...), this one devoted to citations from "The Death of Feminism: What's Next in the Struggle for Women's Freedom."

Context, DanT.

Context.
Why do you repetitively strawman my arguments?

You're still deluded into thinking Engels was talking of nothing other than sexual desire when he said mutual inclination?

"Our sexual love differs essentially from the simple sexual desire, the Eros, of the ancients. In the first place, it assumes that the person loved returns the love; to this extent the woman is on an equal footing with the man, whereas in the Eros of antiquity she was often not even asked. Secondly, our sexual love has a degree of intensity and duration which makes both lovers feel that non-possession and separation are a great, if not the greatest, calamity; to possess one another, they risk high stakes, even life itself. In the ancient world this happened only, if at all, in adultery. And, finally, there arises a new moral standard in the judgment of a sexual relationship. We do not only ask, was it within or outside marriage? But also, did it spring from love and reciprocated love or not? " - Origin of the Family

"Full freedom of marriage can therefore only be generally established when the abolition of capitalist production and of the property relations created by it has removed all the accompanying economic considerations which still exert such a powerful influence on the choice of a marriage partner. For then there is no other motive left except mutual inclination."- Origin of the Family

"What we can now conjecture about the way in which sexual relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production is mainly of a negative character, limited for the most part to what will disappear. But what will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman's surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love, or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences. When these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 10:48:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 9:13:41 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Tunnel vision as in your last 4 threads pertaining to communism/socialism? You do realize there's only one communist who even frequents the politics forum regularly - royalpaladin.

I seem to be the only liberal here
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 1:05:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 10:43:17 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2012 9:34:20 AM, DanT wrote:
Why do you repetitively strawman my arguments?

You're still deluded into thinking Engels was talking of nothing other than sexual desire when he said mutual inclination?

"Our sexual love differs essentially from the simple sexual desire, the Eros, of the ancients.

You took that out of context, listen to what he claims the difference is

In the first place, it assumes that the person loved returns the love; to this extent the woman is on an equal footing with the man, whereas in the Eros of antiquity she was often not even asked.

Hence mutual inclination; which is not the same as mutual consent, as inclination is an urge or instinct, whereas consent is an individualist judgment call based on logic and reason. With Greek Eros it was only a one sided masculine inclination.

Secondly, our sexual love has a degree of intensity and duration which makes both lovers feel that non-possession and separation are a great, if not the greatest, calamity; to possess one another, they risk high stakes, even life itself. In the ancient world this happened only, if at all, in adultery. And, finally, there arises a new moral standard in the judgment of a sexual relationship. We do not only ask, was it within or outside marriage? But also, did it spring from love and reciprocated love or not? " - Origin of the Family

In other words, the second pillar of Marxist sex-love is that it's not confined to marriage.

It's probably good to note that Marxists define "love" differently than capitalist; hence terms such as "free love" and what not.

"Full freedom of marriage can therefore only be generally established when the abolition of capitalist production and of the property relations created by it has removed all the accompanying economic considerations which still exert such a powerful influence on the choice of a marriage partner. For then there is no other motive left except mutual inclination."- Origin of the Family

mutual inclination, not mutual consent; why can't you get that through your thick skull?
"What we can now conjecture about the way in which sexual relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production is mainly of a negative character, limited for the most part to what will disappear. But what will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman's surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love, or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences. When these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice"

That just says that they base it on mutual inclination, deriving from instinct, rather than mutual consent, deriving from logic, because the economic and social elements that create a logical argument for sex is removed, in theory.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 1:09:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 10:45:00 AM, Wnope wrote:
Still think women have no ability to give consent to sex-acts in communist society?

I still think both men and women have no ability to give consent to sex-acts in a communist society.

You are a sexist; men can be raped too.

communism is an extremely irrational system where their solution is to cut one group of people down, so that everyone is equally oppressed, and thus everyone is equal.

They make everyone equally poverty stricken, they make everyone equally raped, and they make everyone equally slaves.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 2:34:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 1:05:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/29/2012 10:43:17 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2012 9:34:20 AM, DanT wrote:
Why do you repetitively strawman my arguments?

You're still deluded into thinking Engels was talking of nothing other than sexual desire when he said mutual inclination?

"Our sexual love differs essentially from the simple sexual desire, the Eros, of the ancients.

You took that out of context, listen to what he claims the difference is

In the first place, it assumes that the person loved returns the love; to this extent the woman is on an equal footing with the man, whereas in the Eros of antiquity she was often not even asked.

Hence mutual inclination; which is not the same as mutual consent, as inclination is an urge or instinct, whereas consent is an individualist judgment call based on logic and reason. With Greek Eros it was only a one sided masculine inclination.

Secondly, our sexual love has a degree of intensity and duration which makes both lovers feel that non-possession and separation are a great, if not the greatest, calamity; to possess one another, they risk high stakes, even life itself. In the ancient world this happened only, if at all, in adultery. And, finally, there arises a new moral standard in the judgment of a sexual relationship. We do not only ask, was it within or outside marriage? But also, did it spring from love and reciprocated love or not? " - Origin of the Family

In other words, the second pillar of Marxist sex-love is that it's not confined to marriage.

It's probably good to note that Marxists define "love" differently than capitalist; hence terms such as "free love" and what not.

"Full freedom of marriage can therefore only be generally established when the abolition of capitalist production and of the property relations created by it has removed all the accompanying economic considerations which still exert such a powerful influence on the choice of a marriage partner. For then there is no other motive left except mutual inclination."- Origin of the Family

mutual inclination, not mutual consent; why can't you get that through your thick skull?
"What we can now conjecture about the way in which sexual relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production is mainly of a negative character, limited for the most part to what will disappear. But what will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman's surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love, or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences. When these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice"

That just says that they base it on mutual inclination, deriving from instinct, rather than mutual consent, deriving from logic, because the economic and social elements that create a logical argument for sex is removed, in theory.

"Whereas in Eros of antiquity she is not even asked."

"Whereas" means a contrast of Eros to Engel's proposed sex-love. The contrast with "she is not asked" is "she is asked."

"In other words, the second pillar of Marxist sex-love is that it's not confined to marriage."

It's probably good to note that Marxists define "love" differently than capitalist; hence terms such as "free love" and what not."

You are right, Engels had a specific definition of sex-love as distinct from "primal instinctual desire". Engels DEFINES "eros" as simple sexual desire. He gave it IN THE PARAGRAPH I QUOTED:

"Our sexual love differs essentially from the simple sexual desire, the Eros, of the ancients. In the first place, it assumes that the person loved returns the love; to this extent the woman is on an equal footing with the man, whereas in the Eros of antiquity she was often not even asked. Secondly, our sexual love has a degree of intensity and duration which makes both lovers feel that non-possession and separation are a great, if not the greatest, calamity; to possess one another, they risk high stakes, even life itself. In the ancient world this happened only, if at all, in adultery. And, finally, there arises a new moral standard in the judgment of a sexual relationship. We do not only ask, was it within or outside marriage? But also, did it spring from love and reciprocated love or not?"

So, Marxist sex-love isn't pure primal desire, and it necessitates both sides to be as asked whether or not they will have sex. Engels says the closest thing in Capitalism to sex-love is adultery, a completely recreational sexual action. The main criteria for whether sex-love is "healthy" is whether the love is RECIPROCATED.

Lemme guess, you still think women have no consent under post-capitalist sex-love?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 2:42:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 1:09:13 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/29/2012 10:45:00 AM, Wnope wrote:
Still think women have no ability to give consent to sex-acts in communist society?

I still think both men and women have no ability to give consent to sex-acts in a communist society.

You are a sexist; men can be raped too.

communism is an extremely irrational system where their solution is to cut one group of people down, so that everyone is equally oppressed, and thus everyone is equal.

They make everyone equally poverty stricken, they make everyone equally raped, and they make everyone equally slaves.

I'm quite aware men can be raped.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 4:49:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 2:34:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2012 1:05:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/29/2012 10:43:17 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2012 9:34:20 AM, DanT wrote:
Why do you repetitively strawman my arguments?

You're still deluded into thinking Engels was talking of nothing other than sexual desire when he said mutual inclination?

"Our sexual love differs essentially from the simple sexual desire, the Eros, of the ancients.

You took that out of context, listen to what he claims the difference is

In the first place, it assumes that the person loved returns the love; to this extent the woman is on an equal footing with the man, whereas in the Eros of antiquity she was often not even asked.

Hence mutual inclination; which is not the same as mutual consent, as inclination is an urge or instinct, whereas consent is an individualist judgment call based on logic and reason. With Greek Eros it was only a one sided masculine inclination.

Secondly, our sexual love has a degree of intensity and duration which makes both lovers feel that non-possession and separation are a great, if not the greatest, calamity; to possess one another, they risk high stakes, even life itself. In the ancient world this happened only, if at all, in adultery. And, finally, there arises a new moral standard in the judgment of a sexual relationship. We do not only ask, was it within or outside marriage? But also, did it spring from love and reciprocated love or not? " - Origin of the Family

In other words, the second pillar of Marxist sex-love is that it's not confined to marriage.

It's probably good to note that Marxists define "love" differently than capitalist; hence terms such as "free love" and what not.

"Full freedom of marriage can therefore only be generally established when the abolition of capitalist production and of the property relations created by it has removed all the accompanying economic considerations which still exert such a powerful influence on the choice of a marriage partner. For then there is no other motive left except mutual inclination."- Origin of the Family

mutual inclination, not mutual consent; why can't you get that through your thick skull?
"What we can now conjecture about the way in which sexual relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production is mainly of a negative character, limited for the most part to what will disappear. But what will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman's surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love, or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences. When these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice"

That just says that they base it on mutual inclination, deriving from instinct, rather than mutual consent, deriving from logic, because the economic and social elements that create a logical argument for sex is removed, in theory.

"Whereas in Eros of antiquity she is not even asked."

"Whereas" means a contrast of Eros to Engel's proposed sex-love. The contrast with "she is not asked" is "she is asked."

You are taking it out of context still; look at the whole paragraph not just a small line, which suits your beliefs.
"In other words, the second pillar of Marxist sex-love is that it's not confined to marriage."

It's probably good to note that Marxists define "love" differently than capitalist; hence terms such as "free love" and what not."

You are right, Engels had a specific definition of sex-love as distinct from "primal instinctual desire". Engels DEFINES "eros" as simple sexual desire. He gave it IN THE PARAGRAPH I QUOTED:

"Our sexual love differs essentially from the simple sexual desire, the Eros, of the ancients.

He defines love as sexual desire, that's not to say that's how capitalists define love.

Simple sexual desire is Eros, whereas complex sexual desire is sexual love. The two differ in that Eros is 1 sided, and is confined to marriage, whereas Sex Love is 2 sided, and not bound by contract.
Capitalists however see love as more than sexual desires; capitalists see it as the soul's counter balance in another.

In the first place, it assumes that the person loved returns the love; to this extent the woman is on an equal footing with the man, whereas in the Eros of antiquity she was often not even asked. Secondly, our sexual love has a degree of intensity and duration which makes both lovers feel that non-possession and separation are a great, if not the greatest, calamity; to possess one another, they risk high stakes, even life itself. In the ancient world this happened only, if at all, in adultery. And, finally, there arises a new moral standard in the judgment of a sexual relationship. We do not only ask, was it within or outside marriage? But also, did it spring from love and reciprocated love or not?"

That sounds like instinct to me. If you look at monogamy in wild animals, their sexual instincts tell them to do exactly this. That's why mutual instincts is important to Marxism, because in those species, both the feminine and masculine instincts are important to the process of procreation.

So, Marxist sex-love isn't pure primal desire, and it necessitates both sides to be as asked whether or not they will have sex.
He never said any such thing
Engels says the closest thing in Capitalism to sex-love is adultery, a completely recreational sexual action. The main criteria for whether sex-love is "healthy" is whether the love is RECIPROCATED.

If the instinct to mate with that person is reciprocated. By the way, adultery is a great example of an instinctual act of procreation.

Lemme guess, you still think women have no consent under post-capitalist sex-love?

Yet another strawman
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle