Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

mgtow

intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 3:24:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I recently discovered MGTOW and for the past 2 or 3 weeks have been engrossed by the overall philosophy of MGTOW. If any one has yet to be introduced to MGTOW, the acronym MGTOW is: men going their own way.

I agree with a majority of the perspectives highlighted from MGTOW, and I desire to leaner more about it.

I am curious, for those that are familiar with MGTOW, for your opinion (experiences) regarding MGTOW, as I am curious to learn more.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 4:10:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 3:24:07 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
I recently discovered MGTOW and for the past 2 or 3 weeks have been engrossed by the overall philosophy of MGTOW. If any one has yet to be introduced to MGTOW, the acronym MGTOW is: men going their own way.

I agree with a majority of the perspectives highlighted from MGTOW, and I desire to leaner more about it.

I am curious, for those that are familiar with MGTOW, for your opinion (experiences) regarding MGTOW, as I am curious to learn more.

LOL, yes I've seen it. It pretty much teaches men to hate women. It does teach a healthy philosophy of not being pvssy whipped and doing your own thing, but you don't need to adopt that philosophy to achieve those things.

I still look into MGTOW occasionally when I'm bored, just like I do with the black Israelites, Ale jones and other people who have a unique way of seeing the world. I've wanted to do a debate on ideals I've derived from MGTOW for a while,
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 6:58:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oh dear Lord, men rejecting females, men giving women the once-over and not snapping up one of these delightful creatures! Heaven forfend! All this female spluttering in rage, hurling of epitaphs, heaping of scorn, is the female equivalent of a spoilt obnoxious brat throwing the mother of all tantrums at not being picked to play the princess in the school play, because" well because I am a princess!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 5:28:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 4:10:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:24:07 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Wylted:: I recently discovered MGTOW and for the past 2 or 3 weeks have been engrossed by the overall philosophy of MGTOW. If any one has yet to be introduced to MGTOW, the acronym MGTOW is: men going their own way.

I agree with a majority of the perspectives highlighted from MGTOW, and I desire to leaner more about it.

I am curious, for those that are familiar with MGTOW, for your opinion (experiences) regarding MGTOW, as I am curious to learn more.

Wylted: LOL, yes I've seen it. It pretty much teaches men to hate women.

The Fool: Not a big fan of a lot of the MGTOW philosophy myself. Its generally about being a man on our own terms. Not letting society, feminist or woman define what a man is or not suppose to be. It takes the perspective that society values woman and children, as ends, and men as merely "means" for them but not in themselves. The Idea is that in this society if you don't look out for yourself as a man nobody will. They want to opt out of participating in society where men are generally only seen as tools, and utilities to be used/drained and then deposed of once you are no longer useful.

There is a lot more then this, and its growing too fast to pin down all the mainstream generalities. But tell me, what part of the philosophy is "woman hating"?

Wylted: It does teach a healthy philosophy of not being pvssy whipped and doing your own thing, but you don't need to adopt that philosophy to achieve those things.

The Fool: It's the other way around. You learn philosophy to know if you ought not be whipped.

Wylted:: I still look into MGTOW occasionally when I'm bored, just like I do with the black Israelites, Ale jones and other people who have a unique way of seeing the world. I've wanted to do a debate on ideals I've derived from MGTOW for a while,

The Fool: Have you been to main website?

http://www.mgtow.com...
"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
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 5:58:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 5:28:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/21/2014 4:10:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:24:07 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Wylted:: I recently discovered MGTOW and for the past 2 or 3 weeks have been engrossed by the overall philosophy of MGTOW. If any one has yet to be introduced to MGTOW, the acronym MGTOW is: men going their own way.

I agree with a majority of the perspectives highlighted from MGTOW, and I desire to leaner more about it.

I am curious, for those that are familiar with MGTOW, for your opinion (experiences) regarding MGTOW, as I am curious to learn more.

Wylted: LOL, yes I've seen it. It pretty much teaches men to hate women.

The Fool: Not a big fan of a lot of the MGTOW philosophy myself. Its generally about being a man on our own terms. Not letting society, feminist or woman define what a man is or not suppose to be. It takes the perspective that society values woman and children, as ends, and men as merely "means" for them but not in themselves. The Idea is that in this society if you don't look out for yourself as a man nobody will. They want to opt out of participating in society where men are generally only seen as tools, and utilities to be used/drained and then deposed of once you are no longer useful.

There is a lot more then this, and its growing too fast to pin down all the mainstream generalities. But tell me, what part of the philosophy is "woman hating"?

Wylted: It does teach a healthy philosophy of not being pvssy whipped and doing your own thing, but you don't need to adopt that philosophy to achieve those things.

The Fool: It's the other way around. You learn philosophy to know if you ought not be whipped.

Wylted:: I still look into MGTOW occasionally when I'm bored, just like I do with the black Israelites, Ale jones and other people who have a unique way of seeing the world. I've wanted to do a debate on ideals I've derived from MGTOW for a while,

The Fool: Have you been to main website?

http://www.mgtow.com...

I'll check it out. I'm sure it's entertaining
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 12:05:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 5:28:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/21/2014 4:10:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:24:07 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Wylted:: I recently discovered MGTOW and for the past 2 or 3 weeks have been engrossed by the overall philosophy of MGTOW. If any one has yet to be introduced to MGTOW, the acronym MGTOW is: men going their own way.

I agree with a majority of the perspectives highlighted from MGTOW, and I desire to leaner more about it.

I am curious, for those that are familiar with MGTOW, for your opinion (experiences) regarding MGTOW, as I am curious to learn more.

Wylted: LOL, yes I've seen it. It pretty much teaches men to hate women.

The Fool: Not a big fan of a lot of the MGTOW philosophy myself. Its generally about being a man on our own terms. Not letting society, feminist or woman define what a man is or not suppose to be. It takes the perspective that society values woman and children, as ends, and men as merely "means" for them but not in themselves. The Idea is that in this society if you don't look out for yourself as a man nobody will. They want to opt out of participating in society where men are generally only seen as tools, and utilities to be used/drained and then deposed of once you are no longer useful.

There is a lot more then this, and its growing too fast to pin down all the mainstream generalities. But tell me, what part of the philosophy is "woman hating"?

Wylted: It does teach a healthy philosophy of not being pvssy whipped and doing your own thing, but you don't need to adopt that philosophy to achieve those things.

The Fool: It's the other way around. You learn philosophy to know if you ought not be whipped.

Wylted:: I still look into MGTOW occasionally when I'm bored, just like I do with the black Israelites, Ale jones and other people who have a unique way of seeing the world. I've wanted to do a debate on ideals I've derived from MGTOW for a while,

The Fool: Have you been to main website?

http://www.mgtow.com...

What particular substance of MGTOW philosophy do you dispute? The general philosophy is passive-agressive, and does, in a few instances, overtly endorse women slandering, however I am congruous pertaining to the notion that men should not be disposable at women's consent, exclusively for utility.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 1:22:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 12:05:45 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 10/22/2014 5:28:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/21/2014 4:10:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:24:07 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Wylted:: I recently discovered MGTOW and for the past 2 or 3 weeks have been engrossed by the overall philosophy of MGTOW. If any one has yet to be introduced to MGTOW, the acronym MGTOW is: men going their own way.

I agree with a majority of the perspectives highlighted from MGTOW, and I desire to leaner more about it.

I am curious, for those that are familiar with MGTOW, for your opinion (experiences) regarding MGTOW, as I am curious to learn more.

Wylted: LOL, yes I've seen it. It pretty much teaches men to hate women.

The Fool: Not a big fan of a lot of the MGTOW philosophy myself. Its generally about being a man on our own terms. Not letting society, feminist or woman define what a man is or not suppose to be. It takes the perspective that society values woman and children, as ends, and men as merely "means" for them but not in themselves. The Idea is that in this society if you don't look out for yourself as a man nobody will. They want to opt out of participating in society where men are generally only seen as tools, and utilities to be used/drained and then deposed of once you are no longer useful.

There is a lot more then this, and its growing too fast to pin down all the mainstream generalities. But tell me, what part of the philosophy is "woman hating"?

Wylted: It does teach a healthy philosophy of not being pvssy whipped and doing your own thing, but you don't need to adopt that philosophy to achieve those things.

The Fool: It's the other way around. You learn philosophy to know if you ought not be whipped.

Wylted:: I still look into MGTOW occasionally when I'm bored, just like I do with the black Israelites, Ale jones and other people who have a unique way of seeing the world. I've wanted to do a debate on ideals I've derived from MGTOW for a while,

The Fool: Have you been to main website?

http://www.mgtow.com...

What particular substance of MGTOW philosophy do you dispute?

The Fool: The Anti-romantic overtones, and stronger emphasis on woman rather then MRA's emphasis on Rights and Feminism, but I guess that part of recognizing reality.

intellectuallyprimitive: The general philosophy is passive-agressive, and does, in a few instances, overtly endorse women slandering, however I am congruous pertaining to the notion that men should not be disposable at women's consent, exclusively for utility.

The Fool: There is a general insinuation that society lacks empathy towards men, and so its no surprise that feminism, (who they don't want to be represented by, and violently protest against men having their organized voice), and woman who are not men, are generally seen as promoters. But that is the only notion consistent with the slander of woman, I would consider as part of the philosophy.

Remember men don't have feminism, that is, a social institution were they can academically speak and vent there THIER OWN ISSUES and gender frustrations without being demonized, and so it's a way of getting that out. But those are not the philosophical aspects. (I use the term philosophy loosely, as loosely as I would call Feminist theory any sort of philosophy.) Lastly, it is generally a loose collection of related and somewhat consistent ideas partially in reaction to feminism, but yet very much like the origins of feminism. Keep in mind, there are not philosophical academic scholars persay, so I wouldn't hold it up to that standard, but don't be surprised if a more organized, consistent and coherent philosophy in the next ten years emerges in academia.

Against The Ideologist
"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
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 6:51:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 1:22:54 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/23/2014 12:05:45 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 10/22/2014 5:28:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/21/2014 4:10:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:24:07 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Wylted:: I recently discovered MGTOW and for the past 2 or 3 weeks have been engrossed by the overall philosophy of MGTOW. If any one has yet to be introduced to MGTOW, the acronym MGTOW is: men going their own way.

I agree with a majority of the perspectives highlighted from MGTOW, and I desire to leaner more about it.

I am curious, for those that are familiar with MGTOW, for your opinion (experiences) regarding MGTOW, as I am curious to learn more.

Wylted: LOL, yes I've seen it. It pretty much teaches men to hate women.

The Fool: Not a big fan of a lot of the MGTOW philosophy myself. Its generally about being a man on our own terms. Not letting society, feminist or woman define what a man is or not suppose to be. It takes the perspective that society values woman and children, as ends, and men as merely "means" for them but not in themselves. The Idea is that in this society if you don't look out for yourself as a man nobody will. They want to opt out of participating in society where men are generally only seen as tools, and utilities to be used/drained and then deposed of once you are no longer useful.

There is a lot more then this, and its growing too fast to pin down all the mainstream generalities. But tell me, what part of the philosophy is "woman hating"?

Wylted: It does teach a healthy philosophy of not being pvssy whipped and doing your own thing, but you don't need to adopt that philosophy to achieve those things.

The Fool: It's the other way around. You learn philosophy to know if you ought not be whipped.

Wylted:: I still look into MGTOW occasionally when I'm bored, just like I do with the black Israelites, Ale jones and other people who have a unique way of seeing the world. I've wanted to do a debate on ideals I've derived from MGTOW for a while,

The Fool: Have you been to main website?

http://www.mgtow.com...

What particular substance of MGTOW philosophy do you dispute?

The Fool: The Anti-romantic overtones, and stronger emphasis on woman rather then MRA's emphasis on Rights and Feminism, but I guess that part of recognizing reality.

intellectuallyprimitive: The general philosophy is passive-agressive, and does, in a few instances, overtly endorse women slandering, however I am congruous pertaining to the notion that men should not be disposable at women's consent, exclusively for utility.

The Fool: There is a general insinuation that society lacks empathy towards men, and so its no surprise that feminism, (who they don't want to be represented by, and violently protest against men having their organized voice), and woman who are not men, are generally seen as promoters. But that is the only notion consistent with the slander of woman, I would consider as part of the philosophy.

Remember men don't have feminism, that is, a social institution were they can academically speak and vent there THIER OWN ISSUES and gender frustrations without being demonized, and so it's a way of getting that out. But those are not the philosophical aspects. (I use the term philosophy loosely, as loosely as I would call Feminist theory any sort of philosophy.) Lastly, it is generally a loose collection of related and somewhat consistent ideas partially in reaction to feminism, but yet very much like the origins of feminism. Keep in mind, there are not philosophical academic scholars persay, so I wouldn't hold it up to that standard, but don't be surprised if a more organized, consistent and coherent philosophy in the next ten years emerges in academia.

Against The Ideologist



So this is a precursor to masculinism?

I kinda like the idea of choosing to be single without a gay label.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 6:18:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 6:51:11 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/23/2014 1:22:54 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/23/2014 12:05:45 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 10/22/2014 5:28:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/21/2014 4:10:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:24:07 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Wylted:: I recently discovered MGTOW and for the past 2 or 3 weeks have been engrossed by the overall philosophy of MGTOW. If any one has yet to be introduced to MGTOW, the acronym MGTOW is: men going their own way.

I agree with a majority of the perspectives highlighted from MGTOW, and I desire to leaner more about it.

I am curious, for those that are familiar with MGTOW, for your opinion (experiences) regarding MGTOW, as I am curious to learn more.

Wylted: LOL, yes I've seen it. It pretty much teaches men to hate women.

The Fool: Not a big fan of a lot of the MGTOW philosophy myself. Its generally about being a man on our own terms. Not letting society, feminist or woman define what a man is or not suppose to be. It takes the perspective that society values woman and children, as ends, and men as merely "means" for them but not in themselves. The Idea is that in this society if you don't look out for yourself as a man nobody will. They want to opt out of participating in society where men are generally only seen as tools, and utilities to be used/drained and then deposed of once you are no longer useful.

There is a lot more then this, and its growing too fast to pin down all the mainstream generalities. But tell me, what part of the philosophy is "woman hating"?

Wylted: It does teach a healthy philosophy of not being pvssy whipped and doing your own thing, but you don't need to adopt that philosophy to achieve those things.

The Fool: It's the other way around. You learn philosophy to know if you ought not be whipped.

Wylted:: I still look into MGTOW occasionally when I'm bored, just like I do with the black Israelites, Ale jones and other people who have a unique way of seeing the world. I've wanted to do a debate on ideals I've derived from MGTOW for a while,

The Fool: Have you been to main website?

http://www.mgtow.com...

What particular substance of MGTOW philosophy do you dispute?

The Fool: The Anti-romantic overtones, and stronger emphasis on woman rather then MRA's emphasis on Rights and Feminism, but I guess that part of recognizing reality.

intellectuallyprimitive: The general philosophy is passive-agressive, and does, in a few instances, overtly endorse women slandering, however I am congruous pertaining to the notion that men should not be disposable at women's consent, exclusively for utility.

The Fool: There is a general insinuation that society lacks empathy towards men, and so its no surprise that feminism, (who they don't want to be represented by, and violently protest against men having their organized voice), and woman who are not men, are generally seen as promoters. But that is the only notion consistent with the slander of woman, I would consider as part of the philosophy.

Remember men don't have feminism, that is, a social institution were they can academically speak and vent there THIER OWN ISSUES and gender frustrations without being demonized, and so it's a way of getting that out. But those are not the philosophical aspects. (I use the term philosophy loosely, as loosely as I would call Feminist theory any sort of philosophy.) Lastly, it is generally a loose collection of related and somewhat consistent ideas partially in reaction to feminism, but yet very much like the origins of feminism. Keep in mind, there are not philosophical academic scholars persay, so I wouldn't hold it up to that standard, but don't be surprised if a more organized, consistent and coherent philosophy in the next ten years emerges in academia.

Against The Ideologist

Greyparrot : So this is a precursor to masculinism?

The Fool: Now that I've heard a lot more of it, that's exactly what it seems to be.

Greyparrot : I kinda like the idea of choosing to be single without a gay label.

The Fool: Yeah me too, but I think Gays are important for the movement.

Against The Ideologist
"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
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 7:36:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.avoiceformen.com...

Interesting read. While it says it was written by a woman, I highly doubt it. While women can very easily be aware of horrible things that other women do and choose not to simply carry the water (just like some men), the way the author generalizes all women in such a way suggests that it is either not a woman, or someone that doesn't consider them self a woman.

"Our modern society is now exclusively orientated towards achieving, obtaining and accommodating this female approval."

"MGTOW is men thumbing their noses, giving the finger to the notion that men live by the grace and favour of women. It literally pulls the rug out from under the feet of women who, whether consciously or not, have internalised the idea that men are a resource for women, that men live and die to serve women"s needs, wants and whims, that men have no other function but to be at the beck and call of women, but only if and when a woman decides she had some need that a man is obliged to answer and/or fill."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 8:20:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've read a bit into this by the website and various MRAs (though I have not read any opinions from feminists yet on it). It seems that it is very similar to the feminist movement in the 60s and 70s. Where many rejected the idea that woman were to fit in a particular, predetermined role. That women had the right to be who they wanted and do what they wanted, and that society had no right to criticize.

It seems that while the belief itself is not "anti-woman," it largely attracts those that are, or at least passive aggressive on the matter. Much like early feminism wasn't anti-man, but it attracted many that were.

It is my personal belief that most of these social issues are caused, not by a lack of rights, but by a society that focuses on the individual, what is your right, your entitlements, how can things be done for you? All this marketing that says you have a right to be happy (when they're trying to sell you a new car) or my personal favorite "you deserve it." This breeds a mindset of looking at everything in a way of "what can it do for you?" Including other people. They stop being people and just means for your happiness and wants. This isn't just men, or women, or kids or adults or democrats or republicans. These advertisements target anyone and everyone.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 8:27:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 7:36:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.avoiceformen.com...

"Our modern society is now exclusively orientated towards achieving, obtaining and accommodating this female approval."

"MGTOW is men thumbing their noses, giving the finger to the notion that men live by the grace and favour of women. It literally pulls the rug out from under the feet of women who, whether consciously or not, have internalised the idea that men are a resource for women, that men live and die to serve women"s needs, wants and whims, that men have no other function but to be at the beck and call of women, but only if and when a woman decides she had some need that a man is obliged to answer and/or fill."

Ore_Ele: Interesting read. While it says it was written by a woman, I highly doubt it. While women can very easily be aware of horrible things that other women do and choose not to simply carry the water (just like some men), the way the author generalizes all women in such a way suggests that it is either not a woman, or someone that doesn't consider them self a woman.

The Fool: You'd be surprised.. There are even some controversial MGTOW woman (because it's not supposed to include women) Who reject the term "woman", and refer to themselves only as Females

Against The Ideologist
"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
11/15/2014 9:25:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Our modern society is now exclusively orientated towards achieving, obtaining and accommodating this female approval."
Part 2

Ore_Ele: I've read a bit into this by the website and various MRAs (though I have not read any opinions from feminists yet on it). It seems that it is very similar to the feminist movement in the 60s and 70s. Where many rejected the idea that woman were to fit in a particular, predetermined role. That women had the right to be who they wanted and do what they wanted, and that society had no right to criticize.

It seems that while the belief itself is not "anti-woman," it largely attracts those that are, or at least passive aggressive on the matter. Much like early feminism wasn't anti-man, but it attracted many that were.

The Fool: You're right, that's exactly what's happening..

Ore_Ele :: It is my personal belief that most of these social issues are caused, not by a lack of rights, but by a society that focuses on the individual, what is your right, your entitlements, how can things be done for you?

The Fool: I believe that's how these movements get going. It's usually a minority group, who are different then the majority, and so want to change the status quo to be accommodated for their individual differences. This minority than overgeneralizes their concerns, as the group's concerns, for the group.

e.g.
With feminism you had this minority of women didn't necessarily fit into the traditionalist mindset, and so wanted to change the world to account for themselves. And that's kind of how it got started.

Ore_Ele: All this marketing that says you have a right to be happy (when they're trying to sell you a new car) or my personal favorite "you deserve it."

This breeds a mindset of looking at everything in a way of "what can it do for you?" Including other people. They stop being people and just means for your happiness and wants. This isn't just men, or women, or kids or adults or democrats or republicans. These advertisements target anyone and everyone.

The Fool: But to what extent " what can it do for you" a fair question? I agree with the MGTOW claim that today's feminist society, completely works around how the woman is feeling, and ignores men's general concerns unless somehow they can fit it into the already pre-established feminist narrative.. Even if, woman say otherwise, feminist will step in, and create a construct which explains why the only reason my woman think otherwise is because they been mentally corrupted. Thus to these feminist, there is no legitimate criticism to their movement.

I mean think of it, we literally change the entire world to accommodate if a woman's feeling afraid or not, are not confident enough, or not attractive enough, to the point where were willing to socialize, demoralize, demonize and manipulate men's thoughts, actions, behaviors, and even preferences in order to account for a women feeling uncomfortable, or unaccepted.

Women are generally seen as something that should be accepted as is, pros and cons, while men are seen as so intolerable, that they must be cleansed and conditioned to a feminist standard, with an invisible moving goalpost, in order to be comparably worthy.

You get feminist say things like "feminist is for men too."

" Lol. Yeah right"

Because of feminism societies have become so insensitive, two men suffering and concerns, that it considers it a joke. It's no wonder the new generation of men simply wants to opt out of society which does not keep to them anyway, but only against them.

These individuals, have nothing to do with the past, but are born now into a world which, tells them that they should put their concerns on hold, perhaps for their whole lifetime, for women. And wait until feminism decides for itself that it's done its job. Like it's ever going to want to give up it's power.

Against The Ideologist

If that's how it is, then it's best we men go our own way.
"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
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 3:53:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 6:51:11 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/23/2014 1:22:54 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/23/2014 12:05:45 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 10/22/2014 5:28:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/21/2014 4:10:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:24:07 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Wylted:: I recently discovered MGTOW and for the past 2 or 3 weeks have been engrossed by the overall philosophy of MGTOW. If any one has yet to be introduced to MGTOW, the acronym MGTOW is: men going their own way.

I agree with a majority of the perspectives highlighted from MGTOW, and I desire to leaner more about it.

I am curious, for those that are familiar with MGTOW, for your opinion (experiences) regarding MGTOW, as I am curious to learn more.

Wylted: LOL, yes I've seen it. It pretty much teaches men to hate women.

The Fool: Not a big fan of a lot of the MGTOW philosophy myself. Its generally about being a man on our own terms. Not letting society, feminist or woman define what a man is or not suppose to be. It takes the perspective that society values woman and children, as ends, and men as merely "means" for them but not in themselves. The Idea is that in this society if you don't look out for yourself as a man nobody will. They want to opt out of participating in society where men are generally only seen as tools, and utilities to be used/drained and then deposed of once you are no longer useful.

There is a lot more then this, and its growing too fast to pin down all the mainstream generalities. But tell me, what part of the philosophy is "woman hating"?

Wylted: It does teach a healthy philosophy of not being pvssy whipped and doing your own thing, but you don't need to adopt that philosophy to achieve those things.

The Fool: It's the other way around. You learn philosophy to know if you ought not be whipped.

Wylted:: I still look into MGTOW occasionally when I'm bored, just like I do with the black Israelites, Ale jones and other people who have a unique way of seeing the world. I've wanted to do a debate on ideals I've derived from MGTOW for a while,

The Fool: Have you been to main website?

http://www.mgtow.com...

What particular substance of MGTOW philosophy do you dispute?

The Fool: The Anti-romantic overtones, and stronger emphasis on woman rather then MRA's emphasis on Rights and Feminism, but I guess that part of recognizing reality.

intellectuallyprimitive: The general philosophy is passive-agressive, and does, in a few instances, overtly endorse women slandering, however I am congruous pertaining to the notion that men should not be disposable at women's consent, exclusively for utility.

The Fool: There is a general insinuation that society lacks empathy towards men, and so its no surprise that feminism, (who they don't want to be represented by, and violently protest against men having their organized voice), and woman who are not men, are generally seen as promoters. But that is the only notion consistent with the slander of woman, I would consider as part of the philosophy.

Remember men don't have feminism, that is, a social institution were they can academically speak and vent there THIER OWN ISSUES and gender frustrations without being demonized, and so it's a way of getting that out. But those are not the philosophical aspects. (I use the term philosophy loosely, as loosely as I would call Feminist theory any sort of philosophy.) Lastly, it is generally a loose collection of related and somewhat consistent ideas partially in reaction to feminism, but yet very much like the origins of feminism. Keep in mind, there are not philosophical academic scholars persay, so I wouldn't hold it up to that standard, but don't be surprised if a more organized, consistent and coherent philosophy in the next ten years emerges in academia.

Against The Ideologist



So this is a precursor to masculinism?

I kinda like the idea of choosing to be single without a gay label.

There are a multitude of other concepts, aside from relationships, that MGTOW endorse. Relationships are the prominent focus. As I don't perceive any reason to label MGTOW as "masculinists" many will interperet the movement to be precisely that, because of the self-evident acronym: men going their own way. Yet MGTOW does not directly involve the advocation of mens issues per se, it is mostly passive-agressive responses, to either feministic ideologies, or even societies perception regarding men.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 1:46:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
**Bump**
"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
12/28/2014 2:11:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"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
12/28/2014 5:23:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Continued from
http://www.debate.org...

:Oryus: Did you listen to the "post-feminism man"?

If you see no humor in a sexist guy ranting like a hateful armchair psychologist about women in a call-to-arms fashion in order to persuade men that getting married isn't worth it..

The Fool: It's supposed to be a rant. Not an argument.. That's the point, it's an emotive rant. He is preaching. It's a speech, a call to arms if you will.

Oryus: well, I can't help you. I'm sorry because you're missing out.

The Fool: You're right, You first need to get help, before you can give help. Why else would you go out of your way, so many times to give us your opinion, towards something you pretend to not care about that you would fabricate and narrative, so to give yourself an excuse to release your emotional tension.

In his breakdown of female psychology, that's the exact argument he would make. What you're doing here.. In other words "you" in a nutshell. Call it toxic femininity if you will.

Oryus:: I'm happy that morons like this guy in the video are actively trying to convince other morons to not pursue relationships with women.

The Fool: Not all men are morons, perhaps only those who choose to get married under the current state of affairs. Perhaps. Were quite overpopulated, and marriage laws are favored against men .But had no benefit to men. Why not just be together and not be married. How does monogamy favor men? Why shouldn't men just keep their money, and/or work less, and buy things in their interest and enjoy their life. It's about male sovereignty, it's not about you.

Were not asking feminism to take care of our Interests, feminism is trying to control them, and we want to be free. Feminism is your girls night out, Have fun! Nor do we feel welcome there. This is our boys night out and you're not invited.

Oryus: Whether it's their goal or not doesn't matter much- it's still, apparently, what they're doing anyway. A

The Fool: yes it does, there are moral reasons for doing so.

Oryus: And that is hilarious to me- as if these ranting douches are women's top choice for partners anyway.

The Fool: And you are exactly the type of women men should avoid, if they want to be happy, perhaps not for sex, but any meaningful relationship. I don't believe all women are like that. but some radical MGTOW's would disagree with me.

The rant is awesome. I don't agree with all of it. . It's emotive, uplifting, and revolutionary. It's even a little exciting.

There is a general argument to be made for what he is saying, which for whatever they are worth, he does make in other works.

MGTOW's like MRA's expect character assassination from all fronts, as there has always been"..Especially amongst Feminist nihilist followers, as yourself, of Valenti, one who mock and laughs at the pain and suffering of 'men and boys' by proudly claiming to' drink male tears'. Such people are no real friends of 'men or boys'. Nor can they ever be trusted to speak on behalf of them. Let alone fit to be their parents, or be ruled by them.

So, if we can survive 60 year and ongoing assault male character assassination by society at large, led and championed by Feminism I am sure we can survive a few more years. So save your femsplaning, and fake laughs for yourself. You"re a funny person.

Against The Ideologist

I like that about you. And I'm being sincere right now.

Look at me being sincere.
http://stream1.gifsoup.com...
"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
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 10:26:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 5:23:40 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Continued from
http://www.debate.org...


:Oryus: Did you listen to the "post-feminism man"?

If you see no humor in a sexist guy ranting like a hateful armchair psychologist about women in a call-to-arms fashion in order to persuade men that getting married isn't worth it..

The Fool: It's supposed to be a rant. Not an argument.. That's the point, it's an emotive rant. He is preaching. It's a speech, a call to arms if you will.

Yeah. That's exactly what I said. It's an emotional call-to-arms rant.

And I also said it's humorous.

What's your point?

Oryus: well, I can't help you. I'm sorry because you're missing out.

Why else would you go out of your way, so many times to give us your opinion, towards something you pretend to not care about that you would fabricate and narrative, so to give yourself an excuse to release your emotional tension.

I care about it in that I think it's funny.

Where is the fabricated narrative though? Quote? Source? Anything? <XD

In his breakdown of female psychology, that's the exact argument he would make. What you're doing here.. In other words "you" in a nutshell. Call it toxic femininity if you will.

You can call it whatever you like- it doesn't make it true. Also funny.
Oryus:: I'm happy that morons like this guy in the video are actively trying to convince other morons to not pursue relationships with women.

The Fool: Not all men are morons,

Who said all men are morons?

perhaps only those who choose to get married under the current state of affairs.

ok

Perhaps. Were quite overpopulated, and marriage laws are favored against men .But had no benefit to men. Why not just be together and not be married.

Yes, why not?

How does monogamy favor men? Why shouldn't men just keep their money, and/or work less, and buy things in their interest and enjoy their life.

Yes, why not?

It's about male sovereignty, it's not about you.


Who said it was about me?

Were not asking feminism to take care of our Interests, feminism is trying to control them, and we want to be free. Feminism is your girls night out, Have fun! Nor do we feel welcome there. This is our boys night out and you're not invited.


Great. But I'm still going to laugh at emotional, woman-hating rants. Would you rather I do something else? What do you do when you hear hateful, racist rants? Do you not find them funny?
Oryus: Whether it's their goal or not doesn't matter much- it's still, apparently, what they're doing anyway. A

The Fool: yes it does, there are moral reasons for doing so.

Oryus: And that is hilarious to me- as if these ranting douches are women's top choice for partners anyway.

The Fool: And you are exactly the type of women men should avoid, if they want to be happy, perhaps not for sex, but any meaningful relationship. I don't believe all women are like that. but some radical MGTOW's would disagree with me.

hahaha! Also funny. Because from what I can see, these men, if they ever seek a relationship at all, seem as though they would seek an egalitarian relationship with someone who is financially independent, is not interested in having children, encourages them to be free individuals, and also does not value the institution of marriage.

If anything, I'm exactly the woman they would be looking for- if they were looking for a partner at all.

On the other hand, men who like angry ranting call-to-arms on youtube which encourage other men to dislike women as individuals due to some flimsy armchair psychology- yeah, not really my type. Sorry.

The rant is awesome. I don't agree with all of it. . It's emotive, uplifting, and revolutionary. It's even a little exciting.

You think it's revolutionary to consider the idea that men needn't get married or be involved in society?
There is a general argument to be made for what he is saying, which for whatever they are worth, he does make in other works.

MGTOW's like MRA's expect character assassination from all fronts, as there has always been"..Especially amongst Feminist nihilist followers, as yourself, of Valenti, one who mock and laughs at the pain and suffering of 'men and boys' by proudly claiming to' drink male tears'. Such people are no real friends of 'men or boys'. Nor can they ever be trusted to speak on behalf of them. Let alone fit to be their parents, or be ruled by them.

lol male tears. Yes, of course.

Make fun of a group and sling lies about them for decades? They will take hold of those titles and call themselves those things ironically. Much like feminists call themselves "sluts," and "bitches" ironically, they also jokingly say they "drink male tears" in order to poke fun at the fact that they are called misandrists.
http://www.slate.com...

Nuance. Ain't it grand?

So, if we can survive 60 year and ongoing assault male character assassination by society at large, led and championed by Feminism I am sure we can survive a few more years. So save your femsplaning, and fake laughs for yourself. You"re a funny person.

Femsplaining. That's pretty rich coming from someone who finds exciting a video which seeks to explain the "psychology" of women- especially in such hateful terms.

Anyway, I tend to agree with what Ore had to say in this thread. But if the words had come from me, you'd never have agreed with me. Also funny. The entertainment continues.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 2:34:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"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
1/5/2015 5:56:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The After Intro

:Oryus: Did you listen to the "post-feminism man"?

If you see no humor in a sexist guy ranting like a hateful armchair psychologist about women in a call-to-arms fashion in order to persuade men that getting married isn't worth it..

The Fool: It's supposed to be a rant. Not an argument.. That's the point, it's an emotive rant. He is preaching. It's a speech, a call to arms if you will.

Oryus: Yeah. That's exactly what I said. It's an emotional call-to-arms rant.

The Fool: Clearly it's not that's not "exactly" what you said. That's like using the word literally, in a nonliteral sense.
In fact you don't even know the difference between an argument, a rant, or rhetoric, and rationality. It's one big blur to you. Go ahead try and prove me wrong. Am I arguing here or am I ranting?
<(XD)

Exactly".

And his rant is justified based off previous arguments, that you don't even know about, because you have no idea which are talking about, and you know it, that's what makes your laughing fake, and the joke on you.
<(89)

Oryus:: And I also said it's humorous.

The Fool: and I said your humorous. In a dark humor kind of way.
<(8D)

Oryus:: What's your point?

The Fool: That's my point!
<(89)

The Fool:: Why else would you go out of your way, so many times to give us your opinion, towards something you pretend to not care about that you would fabricate a narrative, so to give yourself an excuse to release your emotional tension.

Oryus:: I care about it in that I think it's funny.

The Fool: and we are laughing at you. Encore, encore"

Oryus: Where is the fabricated narrative though? Quote? Source? Anything? <XD

The Fool: You create a false narrative of the rant which included a psychological breakdown of women, and that he was trying to convince men that getting married wasn't worth it, when the rent had nothing to do with that. Thus a false narrative, an Oryus tail.

E.G.
"If you see no humor in a sexist guy ranting like a hateful armchair psychologist about women in a call-to-arms fashion in order to persuade men that getting married isn't worth it.. well, I can't help you. I'm sorry because you're missing out."
http://www.debate.org...

The Fool: Clearly this was not what the rant was about.
QED

Against The Ideologist

(To be continued')
"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
1/5/2015 7:12:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Psychology of Oryus
Part 1

Oryus: Femsplaining. That's pretty rich coming from someone who finds exciting a video which seeks to explain the "psychology" of women- especially in such hateful terms.

The Fool: The postfeminist man, doesn't try to explain the psychology of women at all. In fact you're just saying that because I said that part of MGTOW is breaking down the psychology of women. Nor is that the reason why I find exciting.

Your shamelessly and intentionally giving false information, because that's all you can do. That is you. A phony. A fake.
&1

Do you disagree that you're doing this?
<(89)

That's what's unattractive, and disgusting, and vile about you. It's a fact about you.

You can get mad all you want but it's a fact about your (oryus's) nature. You will continue to do it in the future, just as you have done it over and over in the past. As a deflection, you will try to give the sense that I do this as well, and you will fail, and I will show it. it's that easy. That's the difference between you and me.

The Fool: : In his breakdown of female psychology, that's the exact argument he would make. What you're doing here.. In other words "you" in a nutshell. Call it toxic femininity if you will.

Oryus:: You can call it whatever you like- it doesn't make it true. Also funny.

The Fool: Yes. I've been laughing at you the whole time.

Oryus:: I'm happy that morons like this guy in the video are actively trying to convince other morons to not pursue relationships with women.

The Fool: Not all men are morons,

Oryus:: Who said all men are morons?

The Fool: Who said you said that all men were morons?
<(8D)
I said not all men are morons.

Either way you claimed, Falsely, that he was trying to convince men against relationship with women, that coupled with your Valenti brand of feminism, We have good reason to believe that you're referring to men as morons.

It's about male sovereignty, it's not about you.


Oryus:: Who said it was about me?

The Fool: Who said you said it was about you? (&1)
<(89)

The fact that you go out of your way to personally give misinformation about the topic suggests that, you take it personal enough when you shouldn't be taken anywhere at all.

This is our boys night out and you're not invited.


Oryus:: Great. But I'm still going to laugh at emotional, woman-hating rants.

Would you rather I do something else? What do you do when you hear hateful, racist rants? Do you not find them funny?

The Fool: MGTOW encourages male emotions, part of it is rejecting the stereotypes that would make it funny. In other words, the very way you find it funny, is the very way that you are repulsive to men. It's not a given, It's not a given that sexist, in the way that I think you think.

Secondly, sexism is not like racism. Especially not like black racism. Stop trying to use the example as though they are similar.

Against The Ideologist

( to be continued)
"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
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 12:15:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 7:12:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
( to be continued)

What an insightful, revolutionary rant. I believe that Socratic rambling warrants some hemlock- you should get to that. I'd cheers you, but I ran out of male tears to drink so I'll be out for the night retrieving more. Protip: The more emasculated the man, the sweeter the tears. That's the trick they don't teach you in college.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 12:32:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Psychology of Oryus
Part 2

Oryus Misandry Deflection
( to be continued)

What an insightful, revolutionary rant.

The Fool: What part is the rant? you have an answer that

The Post feminism men was great, if it wasn't it wouldn't be so influential. In fact it's old and a lot of this MGTOW stuff you see now, is influenced by that very rant. In fact that rant was the first video posted on the MGTOW website.

Oryus: I believe that Socratic rambling warrants some hemlock- you should get to that. I'd cheers you, but I ran out of male tears to drink so I'll be out for the night retrieving more. Protip: The more emasculated the man, the sweeter the tears. That's the trick they don't teach you in college.

The Fool: The Male tears thing was serious, and is used in regards to men's rights. Nice attempt to deflect it general sarcasm. Because for the most part it isn't. And everybody knows it. The attempt to make it part of a joke is post hoc. As to cover up. This is not in relation to the kill all men, which of course attracts people who actually believe it as well.

But this again does reveal, your very nature. Your Oryus nature.

Against The Ideologist
"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
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 1:00:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 12:32:31 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Oryus: I believe that Socratic rambling warrants some hemlock- you should get to that. I'd cheers you, but I ran out of male tears to drink so I'll be out for the night retrieving more. Protip: The more emasculated the man, the sweeter the tears. That's the trick they don't teach you in college.

The Fool: The Male tears thing was serious, and is used in regards to men's rights...... Because for the most part it isn't. And everybody knows it. The attempt to make it part of a joke is post hoc.

Ohhh! "Everyone" knows it? Thanks for clearing that up. The source you provided ("everybody") was reputable and difficult to dispute.

But this again does reveal, your very nature. Your Oryus nature.

My true nature, eh? Would you like to read my palm as well?

Here's your nature. I read it in my male-tears tea leaves:
You are a bitter young guy who was raised by a heavy-handed 2nd wave feminist. You grew up to then resent anything that didn't validate your victimhood by society, as a man, with the conviction and powerful rhetorical force equal to that of 2nd-wave feminism... other groups be damned! In short, you became a 2nd-wave feminist.... if 2nd-wave feminists advocated for men only. Simply the opposite side of the same coin. Feminism was reactionary and became an ideology. Your reaction to feminism is an ideology just the same- and it is in it's infancy with all lessons yet to be learned. Here is lesson one: you are an Ideologist with a capital I.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 1:09:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 1:00:04 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 1/6/2015 12:32:31 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Oryus: I believe that Socratic rambling warrants some hemlock- you should get to that. I'd cheers you, but I ran out of male tears to drink so I'll be out for the night retrieving more. Protip: The more emasculated the man, the sweeter the tears. That's the trick they don't teach you in college.

The Fool: The Male tears thing was serious, and is used in regards to men's rights...... Because for the most part it isn't. And everybody knows it. The attempt to make it part of a joke is post hoc.


Oryus : Ohhh! "Everyone" knows it? Thanks for clearing that up. The source you provided ("everybody") was reputable and difficult to dispute.

The Fool: The very fact that you're doing this, Is an example of your nature. The males tears propaganda, Has been specifically targeted towards men's right activist for a long time.

The source you gave, it's just another feminist opinion, which is no better than your opinion. It's not justified source.

But this again does reveal, your very nature. Your Oryus nature.

My true nature, eh? Would you like to read my palm as well?

The Fool: I don't need to, I am demonstrating that you're a liar, and you purpose to give misinformation I've demonstrated for years and demonstrating it again. Deflection attempt failed.


What is an ideology Oryus? Enlighten me.

Against the ideologist
"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
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 1:17:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 1:00:04 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 1/6/2015 12:32:31 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Oryus: I believe that Socratic rambling warrants some hemlock- you should get to that. I'd cheers you, but I ran out of male tears to drink so I'll be out for the night retrieving more. Protip: The more emasculated the man, the sweeter the tears. That's the trick they don't teach you in college.

The Fool: The Male tears thing was serious, and is used in regards to men's rights...... Because for the most part it isn't. And everybody knows it. The attempt to make it part of a joke is post hoc.

Ohhh! "Everyone" knows it? Thanks for clearing that up. The source you provided ("everybody") was reputable and difficult to dispute.

But this again does reveal, your very nature. Your Oryus nature.

My true nature, eh? Would you like to read my palm as well?

Here's your nature. I read it in my male-tears tea leaves:
You are a bitter young guy who was raised by a heavy-handed 2nd wave feminist. You grew up to then resent anything that didn't validate your victimhood by society, as a man, with the conviction and powerful rhetorical force equal to that of 2nd-wave feminism... other groups be damned! In short, you became a 2nd-wave feminist.... if 2nd-wave feminists advocated for men only. Simply the opposite side of the same coin. Feminism was reactionary and became an ideology. Your reaction to feminism is an ideology just the same- and it is in it's infancy with all lessons yet to be learned. Here is lesson one: you are an Ideologist with a capital I.

If you are alluding to his affiliation to the MRM as an ideology, then you have demonstrated yourself to be benighted. The MRM is not an ideology, but rather a movement to focus on issues unique to men which involves contexts, analyzing, and a profound harness of rationality.

It can be observed empirically pertaining to feminism, that it often conflicts with the MRM.

https://www.youtube.com...
http://www.rawstory.com...

Does this not demonstrate a need for the organization when the uniformity of men is threatened when attempting to merely collaborate and discuss men's issues? Or is that humorous by your standards as well?

Moreover, I'm quite certain these male tears you refer to would be female tears if a military draft as enacted. The brothers, fathers, cousins, etc... enlisted to fight.

http://usmilitary.about.com...

But then again given your prior humorous reaction to male issues, you would most likely find that to be humors as well.
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 1:18:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 1:17:24 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 1/6/2015 1:00:04 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 1/6/2015 12:32:31 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Oryus: I believe that Socratic rambling warrants some hemlock- you should get to that. I'd cheers you, but I ran out of male tears to drink so I'll be out for the night retrieving more. Protip: The more emasculated the man, the sweeter the tears. That's the trick they don't teach you in college.

The Fool: The Male tears thing was serious, and is used in regards to men's rights...... Because for the most part it isn't. And everybody knows it. The attempt to make it part of a joke is post hoc.

Ohhh! "Everyone" knows it? Thanks for clearing that up. The source you provided ("everybody") was reputable and difficult to dispute.

But this again does reveal, your very nature. Your Oryus nature.

My true nature, eh? Would you like to read my palm as well?

Here's your nature. I read it in my male-tears tea leaves:
You are a bitter young guy who was raised by a heavy-handed 2nd wave feminist. You grew up to then resent anything that didn't validate your victimhood by society, as a man, with the conviction and powerful rhetorical force equal to that of 2nd-wave feminism... other groups be damned! In short, you became a 2nd-wave feminist.... if 2nd-wave feminists advocated for men only. Simply the opposite side of the same coin. Feminism was reactionary and became an ideology. Your reaction to feminism is an ideology just the same- and it is in it's infancy with all lessons yet to be learned. Here is lesson one: you are an Ideologist with a capital I.

If you are alluding to his affiliation to the MRM as an ideology, then you have demonstrated yourself to be benighted. The MRM is not an ideology, but rather a movement to focus on issues unique to men which involves contexts, analyzing, and a profound harness of rationality.

It can be observed empirically pertaining to feminism, that it often conflicts with the MRM.

https://www.youtube.com...
http://www.rawstory.com...

Does this not demonstrate a need for the organization when the uniformity of men is threatened when attempting to merely collaborate and discuss men's issues? Or is that humorous by your standards as well?

Moreover, I'm quite certain these male tears you refer to would be female tears if a military draft as enacted. The brothers, fathers, cousins, etc... enlisted to fight.

http://usmilitary.about.com...

But then again given your prior humorous reaction to male issues, you would most likely find that to be humors as well.

*was enacted
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 1:23:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 1:09:55 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 1/6/2015 1:00:04 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 1/6/2015 12:32:31 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Oryus: I believe that Socratic rambling warrants some hemlock- you should get to that. I'd cheers you, but I ran out of male tears to drink so I'll be out for the night retrieving more. Protip: The more emasculated the man, the sweeter the tears. That's the trick they don't teach you in college.

The Fool: The Male tears thing was serious, and is used in regards to men's rights...... Because for the most part it isn't. And everybody knows it. The attempt to make it part of a joke is post hoc.


Oryus : Ohhh! "Everyone" knows it? Thanks for clearing that up. The source you provided ("everybody") was reputable and difficult to dispute.

The Fool: The very fact that you're doing this, Is an example of your nature. The males tears propaganda, Has been specifically targeted towards men's right activist for a long time.

The source you gave, it's just another feminist opinion, which is no better than your opinion. It's not justified source.

It's from the horse's mouth, just as your ranting youtube videos are indicative of the tides of belief in that movement. But I wouldn't ever expect you to take people at their word because you are a conspiracy theorist.
But this again does reveal, your very nature. Your Oryus nature.

My true nature, eh? Would you like to read my palm as well?

The Fool: I don't need to, I am demonstrating that you're a liar, and you purpose to give misinformation I've demonstrated for years and demonstrating it again. Deflection attempt failed.


What is an ideology Oryus? Enlighten me.


It's not possible to enlighten you, dear, because you're not here for the collaborative search for truth. You're here on a righteous mission strike down any person you deem to hold "feminist" beliefs and you believe this mission to be so true in your heart of hearts. As you ought to well know, because I have explicitly told you so, I often argue for arguments sake. I'm not truthfully a liberal but I argue on behalf of the liberal feminist perspective a great deal of the time because that is what is popularly denigrated on this site. Yet you hilariously demonize me, personally, for it. Do the liberal feminist ideas frighten and threaten you so much that you must find a way to make these ideas into a person to spit venom at?

Your hypocrisy, your self-declared mission, your demonization, your inability to utilize the principle of charity, your inability to separate individuals from ideas and arguments- that and more are what make you an ideologist.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 1:55:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 1:17:24 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 1/6/2015 1:00:04 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 1/6/2015 12:32:31 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Oryus: I believe that Socratic rambling warrants some hemlock- you should get to that. I'd cheers you, but I ran out of male tears to drink so I'll be out for the night retrieving more. Protip: The more emasculated the man, the sweeter the tears. That's the trick they don't teach you in college.

The Fool: The Male tears thing was serious, and is used in regards to men's rights...... Because for the most part it isn't. And everybody knows it. The attempt to make it part of a joke is post hoc.

Ohhh! "Everyone" knows it? Thanks for clearing that up. The source you provided ("everybody") was reputable and difficult to dispute.

But this again does reveal, your very nature. Your Oryus nature.

My true nature, eh? Would you like to read my palm as well?

Here's your nature. I read it in my male-tears tea leaves:
You are a bitter young guy who was raised by a heavy-handed 2nd wave feminist. You grew up to then resent anything that didn't validate your victimhood by society, as a man, with the conviction and powerful rhetorical force equal to that of 2nd-wave feminism... other groups be damned! In short, you became a 2nd-wave feminist.... if 2nd-wave feminists advocated for men only. Simply the opposite side of the same coin. Feminism was reactionary and became an ideology. Your reaction to feminism is an ideology just the same- and it is in it's infancy with all lessons yet to be learned. Here is lesson one: you are an Ideologist with a capital I.

If you are alluding to his affiliation to the MRM as an ideology, then you have demonstrated yourself to be benighted. The MRM is not an ideology, but rather a movement to focus on issues unique to men which involves contexts, analyzing, and a profound harness of rationality.

It can be observed empirically pertaining to feminism, that it often conflicts with the MRM.

http://www.rawstory.com...

Does this not demonstrate a need for the organization when the uniformity of men is threatened when attempting to merely collaborate and discuss men's issues? Or is that humorous by your standards as well?

I never said there was no need to collaborate and discuss men's issues. There clearly is a need. But, much like feminism is a contentious method for collaborating and discussing women's issues, the MRM is and will continue to be a contentious method for collaboration and discussing men's issues.

I was stating that the fool's personal brand of representing men's issues is an ideology. I reiterate it specifically because he believes himself to be above "ideologists" and I enjoy trolling him. However, I also didn't state that ideology is necessarily a bad thing. I think it is a tool like any other- neutral or good in some hands, bad in others. Being a thoughtful, nuanced, gray-area thinker is good because the world is not black and white- but if you wish to make political change, it's going to get you nowhere fast. Ideologies certainly serve their purpose in society well.

Moreover, I'm quite certain these male tears you refer to would be female tears if a military draft as enacted. The brothers, fathers, cousins, etc... enlisted to fight.

http://usmilitary.about.com...

But then again given your prior humorous reaction to male issues, you would most likely find that to be humors as well.

I've had very little interactions with you in my time here (if any at all that I can remember) but, full disclosure, I just generally enjoy giving the fool sh1t and trolling him so you shouldn't pay it much mind.

It is the case that the "male tears" joke is (usually) ironic misandry much like "go make me a sammich" is (usually) ironic sexism.The consequences of both ironic jokes are probably still the same as if the person saying it actually were misandrist/sexist. But to make conclusions about the intention of the person based on the consequences of their actions would be incorrect to do. Sure, it is probably wrong of them to do that, they should be told to stop and they should be made aware of the consequences of their words/actions, but it is also wrong to insinuate that they have sexist intentions because of the consequences of their words. In both cases, the person believes that what they say is so obviously incorrect that it couldn't possibly be taken seriously.... and yet... some people still do. For feminists who delight in ironic misandry- they find the accusations of misandry so obviously false that a joke about "male tears" is viewed as a jab at those who call them misandrists and nothing more. But that is the minefield of irony.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.