Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Thinking critically about feminist P1

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 10:17:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
As philosopher I have read much of the history of feminist and feminist philosophy looking for the big justification. Especially with my rejection of the most of the so called scientific methods in social science, I have come to question it. One of the first things I notices when studying it is that there has yet really been any intellectual opposition of critical thinking, put towards it. Over time I have realized that many of the arguments, are in fact not arguments at all but compilation of opinions stacked in incoherent sets. That is there is no actual feminist Theory in any sense of a coherent understanding of what a theory is. So here I will create a series of challenges to the very foundation, option all it stands upon, to see if anybody can give rational, justifications that don't in the end refer to some mystical unknown metaphysical properties. Hostility again popular ideological beliefs spark hate and hostility in relation to the emotional investment in them so I expect some bud hope for none. But here is my first set of arguments to ground the frame work which I will build more solid argument on top of in these serious. I would appreciate any Non aggressive Rational refutations, I am not perfect, and that is the principle of falsifiability in philosophy, is contradictions.

On Hate:
It has been popular amongst those who make claims of some form of social righteousness. That actions, sanctions, or aggressions, should be made against those that Hate. And there is an often Good a good reason, because Hate, The emotion of evil. With what justification should I say such things? You should always be asking me. And I should as anybody should be forced to give a rational argument LIKE EVERY BODY ELSE SHOULD!

1. The Proof of Hate in itself:
For hate in itself is nothing of then the emotion of anger/dislike. Emotion stem from the conception of MOTION. E as in internal motion. Aka MOTIVATION. That is anger is the motivation to ‘harm'. That is anger is the motivation to harm. This one is easiest conception to grasp because all you have to is picture the world devoid of this this emotion and you will not be able to formulate the conception in such a framework. Therefore Hate is anger and so by necessity The Hater is the angry person.

2. The argument of Hate as evil:
As I said earlier Hate is the evil emotion, why? Because it is the only emotion which HURT the person which the emotion because is a negative emotion and it also promotes harm and is the cause of INTENTIONAL harm of other. Therefore cause the suffering of the hater and the hated.
Even worse, the satisfaction of the emotion is Schadenfreude. A word only in German.

That is the pleasure from the satisfaction of anger(its abolition) is pleasure of the suffering of someone else. I call it appropriately in English The devils pleasure. Why? Because it's a contradiction, of utility, because it pleasures, at the suffering of another which thus never having the possibly of being in itself.

The Relation:
As vague as the general conception of feminism is has been a popular promoter of anger in and of woman, towards men. Secondly almost all of the conceptions are vague, obscure and often irrational Ideological notions. This has been demonstrated over and over again in the history of it. The arguments will be of the same theme. That is if we actual think about it with critical thinking, we expose the thing I itself.

Rational is derives from Latin from the word ratiocination, to rational in calculation in mathematics/logic. And so I mean it in the original precise sense. Not the later vague and subjectivist sense. But the specific sense to be in coherence with logic. Pls Respect and reply with the same analytic clarity and power of argumentation. aka proofs only. That is CERTAIN/TRUE PREMISES WHICH DRAW A CONCLUSION BY NECESSITIY. If read it and cannot refute that it is only rational that you forever hold you peace. NO sarcasm, no insults, just clear and distinct ideas.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 12:36:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I should always mention from now on to look down first for the latest version, Because I tend to not noticed mistakes or miss some key points, which will be the lastest version.

Foundation Of Hate and Evil.
V.01
As a philosopher I have read much of the history of feminist and feminist philosophy looking for the big justification I have all ways been raised as a feminist. My mom contenlty (remidiEspecially upon my rejection of the irrational methods use in Social Science, I have come to question it. One of the first things I noticed when studying it was that there has not yet really ever been any intellectual opposition of critical thinking, put towards it. Over time I have realized that many of the arguments, are in fact not arguments at all but compilations of opinions stacked in incoherent sets. That is there is no actual Feminist Theory in any sense of a coherent understanding of what a theory is. So here I will create a series of challenges to the very foundation, that it stands upon, to see if anybody can give rational, justifications that don't in the end refer to some mystical unknownable metaphysical properties. It is always to be expected that there will be Hostility against popular ideological beliefs. For hate and hostility is sparked in relation to the emotional investment in a belief. Especially Ideological ones of rightiousness. But here is my first set of arguments to ground the framework which I will build solid arguments on top of in this series. I would appreciate any Non aggressive Rational refutations, I am not perfect, and the principle of falsifiability in philosophy, is contradictions.

1 On Hate:
It has been popular amongst those who make claims of some form of social righteousness that actions, sanctions, or aggressions should be made against those that Hate. And there is an often a good reason because Hate is the emotion of Evil. With what justification should I say such things? You should always be asking me. And I as anybody should be forced to give a rational argument for my CLAIMS.

2. The Proof of Hate in itself:
For hate in itself is nothing more then the emotion of anger/dislike. Emotion stems from the conception of MOTION. E as in internal motion. Aka MOTIVATION. That is anger is the motivation to ‘harm'. This one is easiest conception to grasp because all you have to is picture the world devoid of this this emotion and you will not be able to formulate the idea. Therefore Hate is anger and so by necessity The Hater is the angry person.

3. The argument of Hate as evil:
As I said earlier Hate is the evil emotion, why? Because it is the only emotion which HURTS the person that feels it and the ones they hates. It is also the necessary condition of the INTENTIONAL harm of others.
Even worse, the satisfaction of this emotion is Schadenfreude. A word only in German.
That is the pleasure from the satisfaction of anger(its abolition) is pleasure of the suffering of someone else. I call it appropriately in English The devils pleasure. Hey we don't have one yet So that is official. Straight from the Hill!. Why call it this? Because it's a contradiction of utility, it can only give pleasure at the suffering of others which thus never having the possibly of being Good in itself.

4. The Relation:
.As vague as the general conception of feminism is has been(because it is constantly flucuating) it has always been popular promoter of anger in and for woman towards men. Secondly, almost all of the conceptions from which they are grounded on are vague, obscure and often irrational Ideological at best. This has been demonstrated over and over again in the history of it. It has been the spawn of many Radical forms which progression .

The conclusive syllogism:
P1Hate is the emotion of Evil.
P2Feminist promote woman to be angery at men.
C1 Feminist promote Evil againt menn.

Rational is derives from Latin from the word ratiocination, to rational in calculation in mathematics/logic. And so I mean it in the original precise sense. Not the later vague and subjectivist sense. But the specific sense to be in coherence with logic. Pls Respect and reply with the same analytic clarity and power of argumentation. aka proofs only. That is CERTAIN/TRUE PREMISES WHICH DRAW A CONCLUSION BY NECESSITIY. If read it and cannot refute that it is only rational that you forever hold you peace. NO sarcasm, no insults, just clear and distinct ideas.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 7:26:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Non-feminist 'more hostile' towards men than feminists, study finds

by Jess McCabe // 31 July 2009, 17:26

One of the hoary stereotypes about feminists is that we are 'man-haters'. I suspect that most feminists are more likely to roll their eyes at this sort of thing - I find it hard to take too seriously, although of course these stereotypes don't spring out of no-where, and they're often a type of silencing technique.

(They're also quite interesting in what they can tell us, I think. For example, an explanation for the man-hating myth could be that our culture is so overly focused on men, and male-privilege is so deeply entrenched, that when feminists criticise the status quo it's read as being anti-men rather than addressing the marginalisation and oppression of women.)

Anyway, some researchers at the University of Houston decided to investigate whether it's really true that feminists hate men. They interviewed just under 500 undergraduates, using something called the 'Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory'.

What they found was that feminists reported less hostility towards men than non-feminists. In effect, not only does this suggest the stereotype is not true, it's actually the reverse.

Melinda Kanner, one of the researchers, has this interesting observation:

Our work finds that, indeed, non-feminists believe in traditional gender roles such as men being breadwinners and women being caregivers. At the same time, these non-feminists actually appear to resent the confines of the traditional roles they advocate, which presents a paradox for women and men in traditional heterosexual relationships.

Obviously, as a feminist, I'd not say it was much of a paradox: in actually, traditional gender roles are limiting and constricting, and whatever way you swing it, women are not better off in a sexist society. Individual women who don't agree with feminism are still in actually subject to the same crap as women who do identify as feminists or with feminist-like beliefs.

The study's take on this:

Traditional women have more investment in traditional gender roles in which they are both dependent on men and frustrated and subordinated by male dominance. Glick et al. (2004) found in their 16-nations study that hostility toward men was higher among women than among men. Also, hostility toward men was correlated with the national measures of gender inequality. Glick et al. (2004) reasoned that women in traditional nations may feel more resentment toward men for what they view as abuses of power, but that this resentment is not necessarily a challenge to gender hierarchy because it coexists with benevolent beliefs about men's roles as protectors and providers. The more hostile men are toward women, the more women resent men and show hostility toward men. Heightened resentment of men's hostility and abuses of power may explain why women's reported hostility toward men was higher than that of men in more traditional cultures.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 7:29:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is something feminists get accused of a lot, but it doesn't have much grounding in reality. What feminists "hate" is not men, but inequality and sexism.

Most feminists realize that it's not individual men, but a system of gender inequality that's the problem. In fact, a 2009 study out of the University of Houston showed that feminists registered less hostility towards men than non-feminists.

Feminism is about challenging the unequal society we live in. It means we have to examine the ways people of all genders are limited by the roles society has laid out for us. It means looking at double standards, like the way that we focus on a woman politician's clothing rather than what she's saying, or the way that we fail to pay attention to women athletes unless they put out a sexy public image.

Most feminists know that not all men are consciously perpetuating sexism. We also know that women are capable of perpetuating it too.

What we do ask of men who want to help our movement toward equality is to examine the privilege they experience – in the home, workplace, school, politics, sports – just for being born men.

Not all men will experience privilege in the same way, but it's important to take an honest look.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 9:42:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oh women.

Lets see whether I can adequately express my feelings about women.

My interpretation of things is that humans are animals, and thus, are ultimately inclined to animalistic characteristics. I'll define animalistic as those ideologies, inclinations, habits, etc., that are not grounded in rationality, logic, or reason, but instead, an innate primeval lust or inspiration... such as the thirst for power, the desire for superiority, and the perspective that might makes right. These and many other characteristics seem to pervade every interrelationship between social animals, from ants to lions.

And, it just so happens that those three animalistic qualities of humanity specifically are what most influence the relationship between genders. This also seems to be the case in most, if not all social animals. The primitive lusts of Earth-borne organisms are imbued in every interaction each gender makes in relation to the others.

It just so happens that women, through natural selection and, undoubtedly, medical science, have been fabricated throughout history into how they currently manifest, which, on average, is markedly smaller and more physically vulnerable than men. As a result, the social dynamic between men and women evolved to become largely (although not entirely, as outliers tend to be antithetical) patriarchal. I'd agree that natural selection plays a role in how men have manifested as well, but definitely to a much lesser degree.

As we transition into becoming more rational beings, though, the hard distinction in rank between men and women has begun to blur. Physical prowess literally means less than intellectual prowess, in terms of one's capacity to succeed in modern U.S. Accordingly, the innate reasoning and emotional intuitive capacities of women are beginning to shine through, as although they're smaller on average, they're also more clever on average.

So, operating within the rubric of the American Zeitgeist, groups form to express one's devotion to an idea. Given there's a general acknowledgement that intellect is far more important in this age, women have taken that presupposition and asserted that they are thus at the very least equal to men, as physical fitness is no longer a requirement to eat -- it is now considered a commodity one can buy to extend his or her life.

Accordingly, feminism was born, an amalgamate of women who are affronted by this assumption that women are somehow inferior to men, when most are thinking, "I can outsmart most men I meet any day," and they're likely right.

You must also realize that this automatically manifests an alternative -- an antithesis to the cause. In this regard, you assert that men are superior, and if not intellectually (name any male scientist, and I'll give you a female one, and we'll just go on until history's slant exhausts my list, but it'll be a while), then physically, which ultimately suggests that you're willing to beat a girl into submission.

That logic isn't necessarily fallacious. To immediately conclude that anyone who isn't a supporter to the cause is a wife beater is obviously fallacious, but not supporting feminism to a degree, which demands only an even keel in a society in which there certainly remains a glass ceiling and lingering patriarchal sentiments leading to disrespect and exploitation, does sort of beg that question.

Men are foolish. Actualized equality between men and women would likely make the sexual dynamic a ton more fun, but no, people want to be assses about it.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 10:09:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Today's model for what feminism means has the tendency to borrow from masculine traits and to discourage traits that are ostensibly feminine. The loudest feminists are invariably Alpha-females who seem to suffer from an Oedipus Complex. They praise strong-willed women in power suits and denounce demure women as weak.

I see feminism as the antithesis of femininity, however ironic and completely @ss backward that is. More to the point, the feminists who rail about equality seem to want more than that. They seem to want to invert the injustice leveled against them by doing the same thing to men.

They don't seem to want equality nearly as much as they do dominance. I invite all to read feminist literature which is laced with these kinds of undertones.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 12:31:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 7:29:50 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Premise 2 is destroyed. Your argument falls.

The Fool: Is a Social sciecne studyl.. LMFAO,. BY FEMINIST
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 12:42:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: you are also confusing aggression with hate.
Plus its and appeal to authory fallacy:

escription of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 12:44:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 10:09:44 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Today's model for what feminism means has the tendency to borrow from masculine traits and to discourage traits that are ostensibly feminine. The loudest feminists are invariably Alpha-females who seem to suffer from an Oedipus Complex. They praise strong-willed women in power suits and denounce demure women as weak.

I see feminism as the antithesis of femininity, however ironic and completely @ss backward that is. More to the point, the feminists who rail about equality seem to want more than that. They seem to want to invert the injustice leveled against them by doing the same thing to men.

They don't seem to want equality nearly as much as they do dominance. I invite all to read feminist literature which is laced with these kinds of undertones.

The Fool: That is why I said concept on femnism is Vague because they manipulating the name. So I am going to cover all the argument of now and the past over a series. Its great to see guys contributions, I don't think there has ever been any good intelluction opposition. I hope to give it one. But the more arguments the better.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 1:11:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 7:29:50 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Premise 2 is destroyed. Your argument falls.
The Fool: not have I refuted you. I have read you articlue paper and tayored it. Aggression isn't hate I will add it soon.

Royal: This is something feminists get accused of a lot, but it doesn't have much grounding in reality.

The Fool: Its not an accusation its a PROOF. Proof is the strongest possible grounding you can EVER HAVE! Better then inductoin, better then evidence. but PROOF.

Royal: What feminists "hate" Inqeuality

The Fool: People don't hate vague conceptions alone.

Royal: feminists "hate" and sexism

The Fool: Not only it it popular to talk about mens anger as men all through the history is now. You are a perfect example Royal. Sexism is so obscure. You should get your self a Good clear definition. And comback I will explain those topics in P2

Most feminists realize that it's not individual men, but a system of gender inequality that's the problem.

The Fool: Ofcourse that are not going to say it openly. Because when they are talking they are talking about MEN. Again this is a FEMINIST STUDY. Limited to a one univerity.

In fact, a 2009 study out of the University of Houston showed that feminists registered less hostility towards men than non-feminists.

The Fool: Feminist STUDY. Its intentionally bias. and its only of one school. NO FEMINIST IS GOING TO SAY OUT LOUD THAT THEY ARE HATERS. Give me a break.

The Truth is Feminist maniplute the definion back and forth over time ON PURPOSE.. Which I hill DEMONSTRATE post after post.

I will Go over each concept post after post from the beginning to end by I will safe your matterial which is unrelated for good informatoin to work from after. Thanks for the contribution. But please dont' copy and past other people writing. Summaries the arguement into Reasonable true premises and Conclusion. I made that point pretty CRYSTAL CLEAR.

The first series of post will be setting a foundation which I will be launching logical arguement from. I appreciate all the new ideas from guys I can get.
I
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 1:13:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 9:42:52 AM, Ren wrote:
Oh women.

Lets see whether I can adequately express my feelings about women.

My interpretation of things is that humans are animals, and thus, are ultimately inclined to animalistic characteristics. I'll define animalistic as those ideologies, inclinations, habits, etc., that are not grounded in rationality, logic, or reason, but instead, an innate primeval lust or inspiration... such as the thirst for power, the desire for superiority, and the perspective that might makes right. These and many other characteristics seem to pervade every interrelationship between social animals, from ants to lions.

And, it just so happens that those three animalistic qualities of humanity specifically are what most influence the relationship between genders. This also seems to be the case in most, if not all social animals. The primitive lusts of Earth-borne organisms are imbued in every interaction each gender makes in relation to the others.

It just so happens that women, through natural selection and, undoubtedly, medical science, have been fabricated throughout history into how they currently manifest, which, on average, is markedly smaller and more physically vulnerable than men. As a result, the social dynamic between men and women evolved to become largely (although not entirely, as outliers tend to be antithetical) patriarchal. I'd agree that natural selection plays a role in how men have manifested as well, but definitely to a much lesser degree.

As we transition into becoming more rational beings, though, the hard distinction in rank between men and women has begun to blur. Physical prowess literally means less than intellectual prowess, in terms of one's capacity to succeed in modern U.S. Accordingly, the innate reasoning and emotional intuitive capacities of women are beginning to shine through, as although they're smaller on average, they're also more clever on average.

So, operating within the rubric of the American Zeitgeist, groups form to express one's devotion to an idea. Given there's a general acknowledgement that intellect is far more important in this age, women have taken that presupposition and asserted that they are thus at the very least equal to men, as physical fitness is no longer a requirement to eat -- it is now considered a commodity one can buy to extend his or her life.

Accordingly, feminism was born, an amalgamate of women who are affronted by this assumption that women are somehow inferior to men, when most are thinking, "I can outsmart most men I meet any day," and they're likely right.

You must also realize that this automatically manifests an alternative -- an antithesis to the cause. In this regard, you assert that men are superior, and if not intellectually (name any male scientist, and I'll give you a female one, and we'll just go on until history's slant exhausts my list, but it'll be a while), then physically, which ultimately suggests that you're willing to beat a girl into submission.

That logic isn't necessarily fallacious. To immediately conclude that anyone who isn't a supporter to the cause is a wife beater is obviously fallacious, but not supporting feminism to a degree, which demands only an even keel in a society in which there certainly remains a glass ceiling and lingering patriarchal sentiments leading to disrespect and exploitation, does sort of beg that question.

Men are foolish. Actualized equality between men and women would likely make the sexual dynamic a ton more fun, but no, people want to be assses about it.

Nice to have your input, Ren, all the more arguments the better.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 1:17:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: more refutations the better Royal, at the end of the thread when its starts dyng I will give a final version to account for all objection. You should get some hater friend to help out.

but pls,
-no sarcasm.
-no insulting.
-don't post other people work. put it in a small argument form. its not fair to have to filture through all the garbage.
-and not metaphyscial enties. that are unfalsifiable.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 2:55:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Fool, I don't know what else to tell you. I've provided you with sociological evidence that Feminism DOES NOT promote hatred of men; in fact, it solves resentment about gender roles that ALL WOMEN have by empowering them and making them feel equal. I agree that it's not perfect, but it's better than the vast majority of psychological studies that discuss the difference between men and women, which have a sample size of like 16 people.

Also, LOL at the "they're not going to openly say it!" argument. You don't have any proof that they secretly hate men, and I think it's stupid to claim that they do hate men since they're pretty vocal about their beliefs.

Also, I bet that you didn't even know that patriarchy isn't natural to humans. Before the current patriarchal societies, two types of societies existed: egalitarian (in terms of gender) and matriarchal. They were suppressed by the cults of sky gods like Zeus and the Aryan gods (which spread all across Europe and Asia and into India). So anti-egalitarianism is nothing more than an ideology.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 3:32:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 2:55:57 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Fool, I don't know what else to tell you. I've provided you with sociological evidence that Feminism DOES NOT promote hatred of men; in fact, it solves resentment about gender roles that ALL WOMEN have by empowering them and making them feel equal. I agree that it's not perfect, but it's better than the vast majority of psychological studies that discuss the difference between men and women, which have a sample size of like 16 people.

Also, LOL at the "they're not going to openly say it!" argument. You don't have any proof that they secretly hate men, and I think it's stupid to claim that they do hate men since they're pretty vocal about their beliefs.

Also, I bet that you didn't even know that patriarchy isn't natural to humans. Before the current patriarchal societies, two types of societies existed: egalitarian (in terms of gender) and matriarchal. They were suppressed by the cults of sky gods like Zeus and the Aryan gods (which spread all across Europe and Asia and into India). So anti-egalitarianism is nothing more than an ideology.

The Fool: bet again. I am anti irrational.

The Fool: I said they are proofs. You won't be able to answer them you are give Feminist made studies. By feminist, for Feminist. Its like asking the KKK if they are racist., of course they are gonig to so no is white pride.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 3:53:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Always check further down to check for the latest edit.

What is Hate and Evil? V.1.2

As a philosopher I have read much of the history of feminist and feminist philosophy looking for the big justification. I have all ways been raised as a feminist. My mom contently would remind be about how girls are just as smart of boys if not smarter. I never knew why or the significance of why she would constantly remind me. As I because educated and especially upon my rejection of the irrational methods use in Social Science, I have come to question it. One of the first things I noticed when studying it was that there has not yet really ever been any intellectual opposition of critical thinking. Over time I have realized that many of the arguments in its favour, are in fact not arguments at all but compilations of opinions stacked in incoherent sets. That is there is no actual coherent Feminist Theory. It's just this mythology argument no one every bothers to check. So here I will create a series of challenges to the very foundation, that it stands upon, to see if anybody can give rational, justifications that don't in the end refer to some mystical unknowable metaphysical properties. It is always to be expected that there will be Hostility when you are challenging popular ideological beliefs. I have all have learned this to well. It's a Fool question to challenge the old establishments to bring in the new.
I would appreciate any Non aggressive rational refutations, I am not perfect, and the principle of falsifiability in philosophy, is contradictions. I my series I hope to raise awareness of how unsound are the principles we have accepted blindly.

Intro to Hate:
It has been popular amongst those who make claims of some form of social righteousness that actions, sanctions, or aggressions should be made against those that Hate. And there is an often a good reason because Hate is the emotion of Evil. With what justification should I say such things? You should always be asking me. And I as anybody should be forced to give a rational argument for my CLAIMS.

1. The Proof of Hate in itself:
For hate in itself is nothing more than the emotion of anger/dislike. Emotion stems from the conception of MOTION. E as in internal motion. Aka MOTIVATION. That is anger is the motivation to ‘harm'. This one is easiest conception to grasp because all you have to is picture the world devoid of this this emotion and you will not be able to formulate the idea. Therefore Hate is anger and so by necessity The Hater is the angry person.

2. The argument of Hate as evil:
As I said earlier Hate is the evil emotion, why? Because it is the only emotion which HURTS the person that feels it and the ones they hates. It is also the necessary condition of the INTENTIONAL harm of others.
Even worse, the satisfaction of this emotion is Schadenfreude. A word only in German.
That is the pleasure from the satisfaction of anger(its abolition) is pleasure of the suffering of someone else. I call it appropriately in English The devils pleasure. Hey we don't have one yet So that is official. Straight from the Hill!. Why call it this? Because it's a contradiction of utility, it can only give pleasure at the suffering of others which thus never having the possibly of being Good in itself.

3. Argument from Feminist Relation:
As vague as the general conception of feminism is has been(because it is constantly fluctuating) it has always been a popular promoter of anger in and for woman towards men. Secondly, almost all of the conceptions from which they are grounded on are vague, obscure and often irrational Ideological at best. It has been the spawn of many Radicals form which it continues to generate over time. These groups put more emphasis on Hate as their purpose.

4. Argument from the feministic result:
P1 Hate is anger, and anger is Hate. (Argument 1)
P1Hate is the emotion of Evil. (Argument 2)
P2 Feminism throughout the past and in general increases hates toward men and spawns radical hate groups towards men around the world. (Argument 3)
C1 Therefore Feminist promotes and is a direct production of evil against men around the world.

5. Argument of Rationality:
Rational is derives from Latin from the word ratiocination, to rational in calculation in mathematics/logic. And so I mean it in the original precise sense. Not the later vague and subjectivist sense. But the specific sense to be in coherence with logic.

I hope responders can respect and reply with the same analytic clarity and power of argumentation. aka proofs only. That is V.CERTAIN/TRUE PREMISES WHICH DRAW a CONCLUSION BY NECESSITIY. If read it and cannot refute that it is only rational that you forever hold you peace. NO sarcasm, no insults, no mystical existences. Just clear and distinct ideas.

Grounded PCP-dictionary
-PCP-Hate: anger. (A1)
-PCP-The Devils pleasure: satisfaction from the harm of other. (A2)
-PCP-Rational: is to be incoherent with logic. (A5)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL