Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

The Final Solution to Gender Objectification

Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 1:18:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The only way men will ever be seen as more than walking ATM's and women as more than a pair of breasts is to stop promoting the romantic relationship. The only reason why each sex is objectified to the other is because of people complying with the physical and personal demands of the opposite sex. It's the reason women feel pressure to wear makeup. It's the reason men are culturally discouraged from healthy grieving processes like crying. It's the reason women feel that they're worth is more in their bodies than in their brains. It's the reason men feel pressure to work out to get a six pack. It's no secret-- women want men who are emotionally numb and abusively strong and men want women who are boot-licking submissive and ruled by their own emotions.

If you want women to go into STEM fields and men to be removed from the pressure of acting "macho" then you must remove the romantic relationship from the social consciousness. The act of courting the opposite sex must become a thing of the past. But wait, you don't like that? Then stop being a hypocrite-- you are not a "feminist" or "men's rights activist" or "gender equalist"-- you are a gender oppressionist. You don't care enough about gender equality to throw away the insane cultural phenomenon that is the relationship. You want men to keep sacrificing their time (and lives) trying to attract women. You want women to sacrifice their dignity and intelligence trying to attract men. It's sad, really.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 1:47:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 1:18:46 PM, Harper wrote:
The only way men will ever be seen as more than walking ATM's and women as more than a pair of breasts is to stop promoting the romantic relationship. The only reason why each sex is objectified to the other is because of people complying with the physical and personal demands of the opposite sex. It's the reason women feel pressure to wear makeup. It's the reason men are culturally discouraged from healthy grieving processes like crying. It's the reason women feel that they're worth is more in their bodies than in their brains. It's the reason men feel pressure to work out to get a six pack. It's no secret-- women want men who are emotionally numb and abusively strong and men want women who are boot-licking submissive and ruled by their own emotions.

Harper : If you want women to go into STEM fields and men to be removed from the pressure of acting "macho" then you must remove the romantic relationship from the social consciousness. The act of courting the opposite sex must become a thing of the past. But wait, you don't like that? Then stop being a hypocrite-- you are not a "feminist" or "men's rights activist" or "gender equalist"-- you are a gender oppressionist.

The Fool: MRA"s don't attack "neutrals", for not being MRA's. Lol

I don't think there is that much of a disparity between genders that its really this huge problem. I think Feminist Market it as such a huge problem.

We are equally objectified in different ways, but for some reason feminism only want to recognize, "sexual objectification" even though the moral principle of treating people as objects and not ends in themselves is the very same behind both types.

It would be interesting to see how much women are effected without the influence of Feminist propaganda telling them that they are effected, compared to how men are effected, negatively in their respected ways.

Is it not a Fair Trade?

Would woman rather be Objectified by their net worth and disposability or by their sexuality??

Against The Ideology

Which reminds me of another Feminist myth, men are not particularly valued for their intelligence. Being intelligent and broke doesn't seem to get us very far with woman, now does it.
"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
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 1:57:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"The Fool: MRA"s don't attack "neutrals", for not being MRA's. Lol"
Please clarify this statement. I want to reply to it, but the message isn't clear to me.

You say that men and women are equally objectified-- I agree. But why should we stand for being objectified at all?
thett3
Posts: 14,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 2:04:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You have a pretty tough mountain to climb if you want to prove that mating and pair bonding is somehow an "insane cultural phenomenon", and an even bigger one to prove that abolishing relationships would even solve the issue. The objectification doesn't come from the relationship, it comes from trying to attract a sexual partner. Quite the contrary to what you say, I think the insane cultural phenomenon here is the suggestion that animals doing what their instincts tell them to do--find mates--is "objectification".

I'd rather be viewed as a walking ATM at times than have to sacrifice love and sex.

Not to mention that even if your argument held true, very few people would be willing to get rid of objectification if it means that we cannot have relationships with the opposite sex. It's best to work within the constraints of reality--there will always be objectification to some extent. How do we minimize it without compromising other important things too much?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 3:34:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
MRA"s don't attack "neutrals",
Part 1

The Fool: Sorry I"m a bit tired, and what I wrote is quite sloppy. Here"s a better version.

For example, what I meant was I think the cost benefits between the types of objectification between the contrasting types of gender objectification, is comparable. In a way that, there is no obvious measure which shows some ridiculous in balance in well-being rather than, and different types types of objectification.

We are often taught by feminist that men are simply respected for their intelligence as opposed to the sexuality, but this is a feminist narrative, written and constructed by feminists, with a particular ideological viewpoint, where men are the evil antagonist of the world, and women are the neutral or good protagonist.

They only make reference to sexual objectification, in regards to women, avoiding any mention of classical male objectification such as financial worth, and or the expected disposable protectors of women. Expected to eat last, last to be saved, held at gunpoint to go down with the Titanic allowing women priority over lifeboats.

"The Fool: MRA"s don't attack "neutrals", for not being MRA's. Lol"

Harper : Please clarify this statement. I want to reply to it, but the message isn't clear to me.

What I meant by MRA"s don"t attact neutrals, is that feminists generally try to define themselves and their ideology in a way that if you"re not with them you"re against them..That is you either a feminist, or you're against gender equality.

That is if you don"t agree with what they"re saying, and if you don"t promote their views, then you are part of the problem. The idea is that just because you didn't rape anybody, it doesn't mean that you're not responsible.

Against The Ideologist

Where as MRA's don't take that absolutist/Totalitarian (Sith Lord) approach.
"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
11/14/2014 3:59:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
MRA's Don't attack neutrals
Part 2

Harper : You say that men and women are equally objectified-- I agree. But why should we stand for being objectified at all?

It"s only objectification if we treat people merely as objects, not as an in themselves which we appreciate as well. For example there is something romantic about the trade-off. As men we may feel proud to sacrifice our lives for our women and children. And a woman may love to be our doll for the night, as long as we respect them and take care of each other needs as well.

It"s only when taken out of context, as though we only treat women as sexual objects which is not true, or men as income or human shields, because of course in reality we really do care about how women feel, we would all rather a woman enjoyed herself then not. And some non-feminist do care about us to, sometimes.
<(8D)

Its feminism which is poisoning everything and there"s been so much stress on gender relations from Feminism that the whole positive aspect has been forgotten about.

It teaches that men simply do these things, because were try to hold women down, not because it's out of love or caring. Not because we love our Woman or daughters. But are secretly trying to keep them weak. Like we only do it because we are secretly evil. And it discourages women, from reciprocating the feminine tendencies. If they do its because they being mind controlled by "The patriarchy"

Heterosexual dimorphism, is generally what is being forbidden. The masculine-feminine contrast. We are being taught to all be the same, think the same, at the same time, when were not the same, and some of us enjoy those differences.

If you disagree with their ideology you are pro-rape..
<(8O)

It's getting ridiculous. But by only equalizing inequalities which benefit women, and either harm or are neutral to men, forces us to have to equalize inequalities which are disadvantage for men as well or it just becomes as negatively discriminatory against men.

Truth is is that, there is a 15%, which don't fit into this romance, and perhaps they shouldn't have to be dragged along. But I hate that they try demonized our relationships in the process.

Against The Ideologist

Fvch Feminism.
"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
neptune1bond
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 4:40:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 1:18:46 PM, Harper wrote:
The only way men will ever be seen as more than walking ATM's and women as more than a pair of breasts is to stop promoting the romantic relationship. The only reason why each sex is objectified to the other is because of people complying with the physical and personal demands of the opposite sex. It's the reason women feel pressure to wear makeup. It's the reason men are culturally discouraged from healthy grieving processes like crying. It's the reason women feel that they're worth is more in their bodies than in their brains. It's the reason men feel pressure to work out to get a six pack. It's no secret-- women want men who are emotionally numb and abusively strong and men want women who are boot-licking submissive and ruled by their own emotions.

If you want women to go into STEM fields and men to be removed from the pressure of acting "macho" then you must remove the romantic relationship from the social consciousness. The act of courting the opposite sex must become a thing of the past. But wait, you don't like that? Then stop being a hypocrite-- you are not a "feminist" or "men's rights activist" or "gender equalist"-- you are a gender oppressionist. You don't care enough about gender equality to throw away the insane cultural phenomenon that is the relationship. You want men to keep sacrificing their time (and lives) trying to attract women. You want women to sacrifice their dignity and intelligence trying to attract men. It's sad, really.
MRAs typically don't have any problems with the standard dating practices or regular biology that I'm aware of (in fact, they frequently factor biology into their thoughts and positions), and I've been looking into the MHRM (Men's Human Rights Movement) for a while now. Either way, I know that I personally don't have a problem with people choosing their own relationships based on whatever criteria that they see fit.

Here is something I said in a related thread:
"People have taken "objectification" way too far and have turned it into a term that doesn't make any sense. To objectify someone, you have to actually think of them as an object and this is displayed through your words and actions. The very idea of "flirting", "complimenting", and "trying to have conversation with" someone eliminates any reality of actual objectification. I don't know about you, but I've never once tried to converse with, flirt with (or seduce), or even compliment masturbatory tools once in my entire life. You take objects, you use objects, but you never try to "persuade" objects to interact with you sexually or in a relationship capacity or show objects why they might desire such things with you. The very fact that you acknowledge the other person's ability to make choices as to who they'd like to sleep with or have a relationship with or that you try and be nice to them to make them like you completely eliminates any actual possibility for objectification, or at the very least, it renders the word meaningless and therefor useless for anything but making people feel bad about themselves and turning absolutely everyone into "victims"."

It isn't bad or wrong or "rapey" for someone to pick and choose whom they'd like to be with based on whatever criteria they see fit. The only caveat to that is that they must accept the results of their choices. Obviously if a person were to only base it on a limited number of qualities without considering the compatibility and virtues of character of the other person, they are likely to have a difficult relationship/marriage. I don't have any problems with that since I don't have to deal with it and I would not try and deny someone else their preferences, but I think people should be informed of the potential consequences of their choices. As long as no one is being forced and/or manipulated (especially through blackmail, intimidation, or lies) into an unwanted relationship or sexual interaction, I'm usually fine with it. I don't think that anyone has the right to go around dictating to others what relationships they can or cannot have or which qualities they can or cannot desire in their partner. It would be a completely idiotic and backwards society that would actually try and make all men date unattractive girls and all women date poor men just for the purpose of some retarded version of "equality" that causes nothing but misery for everyone. Even the unattractive girls and poor men would be miserable after having to thereafter be stuck with a person who really doesn't really want to be in the relationship and they'd also be strongly desiring divorce after a short while if not immediately. I personally believe in freedom and the right for every individual to pursue their own happiness.
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 5:18:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 2:04:59 PM, thett3 wrote:
You have a pretty tough mountain to climb if you want to prove that mating and pair bonding is somehow an "insane cultural phenomenon", and an even bigger one to prove that abolishing relationships would even solve the issue. The objectification doesn't come from the relationship, it comes from trying to attract a sexual partner. Quite the contrary to what you say, I think the insane cultural phenomenon here is the suggestion that animals doing what their instincts tell them to do--find mates--is "objectification".

Mating to continue the species is not what I'm talking about, but romance and courting are reptillian. They promote sacrifice of the self, interdependence, and emotional vampirism. We are evolved and intelligent enough to mate without irrational emotions in the way. Courting and the actual relationship go hand in hand, cannot have an emotional and committed relationship without preliminary courting. Doing what your instincts are telling you to do is another reptillian aspect of human nature and must be dealt away with if we want to continue calling ourselves rational creatures.
I'd rather be viewed as a walking ATM at times than have to sacrifice love and sex.

Then go ahead.
Not to mention that even if your argument held true, very few people would be willing to get rid of objectification if it means that we cannot have relationships with the opposite sex. It's best to work within the constraints of reality--there will always be objectification to some extent. How do we minimize it without compromising other important things too much?
You disagreed that the relationship was insane yet you have demonstrated the parameters of its insanity: even if what I said was true, humans would be too dependent on the unecessary form of self harm that is the romantic relationship to quit it.
thett3
Posts: 14,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 5:24:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 5:18:31 PM, Harper wrote:
At 11/14/2014 2:04:59 PM, thett3 wrote:
You have a pretty tough mountain to climb if you want to prove that mating and pair bonding is somehow an "insane cultural phenomenon", and an even bigger one to prove that abolishing relationships would even solve the issue. The objectification doesn't come from the relationship, it comes from trying to attract a sexual partner. Quite the contrary to what you say, I think the insane cultural phenomenon here is the suggestion that animals doing what their instincts tell them to do--find mates--is "objectification".

Mating to continue the species is not what I'm talking about, but romance and courting are reptillian. They promote sacrifice of the self, interdependence, and emotional vampirism. We are evolved and intelligent enough to mate without irrational emotions in the way. Courting and the actual relationship go hand in hand, cannot have an emotional and committed relationship without preliminary courting. Doing what your instincts are telling you to do is another reptillian aspect of human nature and must be dealt away with if we want to continue calling ourselves rational creatures.
I'd rather be viewed as a walking ATM at times than have to sacrifice love and sex.

Then go ahead.
Not to mention that even if your argument held true, very few people would be willing to get rid of objectification if it means that we cannot have relationships with the opposite sex. It's best to work within the constraints of reality--there will always be objectification to some extent. How do we minimize it without compromising other important things too much?
You disagreed that the relationship was insane yet you have demonstrated the parameters of its insanity: even if what I said was true, humans would be too dependent on the unecessary form of self harm that is the romantic relationship to quit it.

No, what I demonstrated is that humans almost unanimously *value* the benefits of relationships over the costs. It's not a self harm if the costs outweigh the benefits, and as of yet you've failed to demonstrate any impact from the existence of relationships other than objectification which you've failed to prove is even bad. The burden is on you to show that the sometimes being viewed as an object outweighs...well, love. And I think the probability of you fulfilling that burden to anyone who has ever been in love is exactly 0%.

How do we go about abolishing love anyway?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 5:27:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also this:

"It's no secret-- women want men who are emotionally numb and abusively strong and men want women who are boot-licking submissive and ruled by their own emotions." Is just completely false. I have to question if you're actually being serious here
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 6:05:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
No, what I demonstrated is that humans almost unanimously *value* the benefits of relationships over the costs. It's not a self harm if the costs outweigh the benefits, and as of yet you've failed to demonstrate any impact from the existence of relationships other than objectification which you've failed to prove is even bad. The burden is on you to show that the sometimes being viewed as an object outweighs...well, love. And I think the probability of you fulfilling that burden to anyone who has ever been in love is exactly 0%.

The costs do not outweigh the benefits as there is an alternative that is much better than romance: self love. It is the only rational form of love. Love can only possibly exist when you know the object of your love. One can only truly know oneself as the filters of spoken word and social restraint are not known to an individual with regards to oneself. Therefore any form of self love is always infinitely purer and truer than external love. Loving another person romantically demands that you are emotionally dependent on them, enslaving yourself and your mind. External love is never unconditional, it is the equivalent to emotional economics-- I'll love you if you love me back. Why subject yourself to all this when you can love yourself? And the fact that I have to prove to you that being seen as an object as opposed to a free individual is laughable.

How do we go about abolishing love anyway?
By promoting self love.
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 6:12:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 5:27:28 PM, thett3 wrote:
Also this:

"It's no secret-- women want men who are emotionally numb and abusively strong and men want women who are boot-licking submissive and ruled by their own emotions." Is just completely false. I have to question if you're actually being serious here

I was exaggerating a little bit but what I say stands-- generally men want women who don't challenge their "masculinty" and conform to their beauty standards and women want men who are dominant and masculine. Hence why women are always trying to keep up with the male population's fetishes (big breasts, now its big butts etc.) and why men become "bad boys" and jerks (every man learns that nice guys always finish last).
thett3
Posts: 14,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 6:16:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 6:05:31 PM, Harper wrote:
No, what I demonstrated is that humans almost unanimously *value* the benefits of relationships over the costs. It's not a self harm if the costs outweigh the benefits, and as of yet you've failed to demonstrate any impact from the existence of relationships other than objectification which you've failed to prove is even bad. The burden is on you to show that the sometimes being viewed as an object outweighs...well, love. And I think the probability of you fulfilling that burden to anyone who has ever been in love is exactly 0%.

The costs do not outweigh the benefits as there is an alternative that is much better than romance: self love. It is the only rational form of love. Love can only possibly exist when you know the object of your love.

But I don't think most people want to love only themselves. I love myself. I also enjoy loving others and I don't think I'm unique at all. The way that I love myself is completely different from the way that I love others What makes self love and loving others mutually exclusive? They are different things. I also object to the idea that love can only possibly exist when you know the object of your love. I mean, knowing the other person is obviously important but I don't think that's what you meant. Knowing the person is a necessary but not sufficient condition for love, there is so much more that goes into these things which is why self love is never going to be able to replicate the love one feels for their family or for a partner, or even a friend.

One can only truly know oneself as the filters of spoken word and social restraint are not known to an individual with regards to oneself. Therefore any form of self love is always infinitely purer and truer than external love.

This doesn't follow because it's a completely different form of love--besides people don't truly know themselves anyway. There are all sorts of things we hide even from ourselves like repressed memories and many of our actions stem from our insecurities and refusal to admit our weaknesses even to ourselves.

Loving another person romantically demands that you are emotionally dependent on them, enslaving yourself and your mind.

That's not what slavery means. If we have to put an economic spin on it (bad idea because these fundamental aspects of humanity are so much greater than any economic theory could ever explain), it's much more akin to what you said below: a trade off.

External love is never unconditional, it is the equivalent to emotional economics-- I'll love you if you love me back.

This is not true. Not even close to true.

Why subject yourself to all this when you can love yourself? And the fact that I have to prove to you that being seen as an object as opposed to a free individual is laughable.

You have to prove that being viewed as an object by exceptionally shallow people who I would not enter into a relationship with to begin with somehow outweighs the benefit of love and of being loved.


How do we go about abolishing love anyway?
By promoting self love.

Well, at least you're giving ideas instead of picking a random aspect of society to criticize without understanding why that aspect of society exists
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 6:21:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 6:12:57 PM, Harper wrote:
At 11/14/2014 5:27:28 PM, thett3 wrote:
Also this:

"It's no secret-- women want men who are emotionally numb and abusively strong and men want women who are boot-licking submissive and ruled by their own emotions." Is just completely false. I have to question if you're actually being serious here

I was exaggerating a little bit but what I say stands-- generally men want women who don't challenge their "masculinty" and conform to their beauty standards and women want men who are dominant and masculine.

I think you're engaging in a gross oversimplification of human sexuality. Not all people want the same things. Sure, there are traits generally considered attractive which is why people will take care to emphasize those traits. I've yet to see any convincing argument for why this is bad. It can be bad if taken too far, but what can't? Why is trying to attract a mate bad?

Hence why women are always trying to keep up with the male population's fetishes (big breasts, now its big butts etc.) and why men become "bad boys" and jerks (every man learns that nice guys always finish last).

Oh boy. Rant time. This is simply untrue. People too afraid to ask girls out finish last, not nice guys. Generally girls *love* nice guys. Who wants to be treated like garbage? You have the odd ones who go for jerks, but those kinds of people aren't the ones worth associating yourself with. Even if you could prove that the majority of women like this (good luck), your argument still fails to be persuasive because you haven't and cannot possibly prove that all women are like this, thus giving me no reason not to seek out those who aren't.

I'm a pretty nice guy, and I'm not the most attractive guy in the world but I don't have many problems with getting women. I don't finish last because I'm willing to enter the race to begin with, too many nice and shy guys won't.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 6:41:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Good luck getting people to stop...even those Christians who do not sleep around for religious reasons desire romantic and sexual relationships within the boundaries of marriage.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 7:04:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
But I don't think most people want to love only themselves. I love myself. I also enjoy loving others and I don't think I'm unique at all. The way that I love myself is completely different from the way that I love others What makes self love and loving others mutually exclusive? They are different things.

Loving yourself is most definitely different: it is pure, it is much more intimate, it is better for you. When someone else is hurt you are only affected secondarily. When you are hurt you are affected primarily. That is the difference.

I also object to the idea that love can only possibly exist when you know the object of your love. I mean, knowing the other person is obviously important but I don't think that's what you meant. Knowing the person is a necessary but not sufficient condition for love, there is so much more that goes into these things which is why self love is never going to be able to replicate the love one feels for their family or for a partner, or even a friend.

One can only truly know oneself as the filters of spoken word and social restraint are not known to an individual with regards to oneself. Therefore any form of self love is always infinitely purer and truer than external love.

This doesn't follow because it's a completely different form of love--besides people don't truly know themselves anyway. There are all sorts of things we hide even from ourselves like repressed memories and many of our actions stem from our insecurities and refusal to admit our weaknesses even to ourselves.

Of course most people don't know themselves but every individual has the potential to do so and even if this potential is absent (as in they physically cannot know who they are) what they know of themselves is guaranteed to be infinitely truer than what they claim to know about others. Because when it comes to knowing yourself you will have access to the source of who you are-- your thoughts whereas when it comes to knowing others you must rely on their words, a mere secondary source which can easily be filtered. Allowing you no true way of knowing them.

And how can you love someone if you don't even know who they are? You're just setting yourself up for failure there. If person A claims that they love person B and feel he or she is fantastic and it turns out that the other person's mean spirited or rude, did person A ever really love the other individual? Or did they just love who they thought person B was? This is why knowing them is foundational-- you can't know how you feel about someone if you don't know who that person is.

Loving another person romantically demands that you are emotionally dependent on them, enslaving yourself and your mind.

That's not what slavery means. If we have to put an economic spin on it (bad idea because these fundamental aspects of humanity are so much greater than any economic theory could ever explain), it's much more akin to what you said below: a trade off.

But why go through with the trade off if there is something much better for you? When you are in love with someone else they have almost full control of your emotions-- that is emotional slavery.

External love is never unconditional, it is the equivalent to emotional economics-- I'll love you if you love me back.

This is not true. Not even close to true.


Don't just give me empty statements, support your arguments.

Why subject yourself to all this when you can love yourself? And the fact that I have to prove to you that being seen as an object as opposed to a free individual is laughable.

You have to prove that being viewed as an object by exceptionally shallow people who I would not enter into a relationship with to begin with somehow outweighs the benefit of love and of being loved.

Every relationship is based on objectification: you have a goal or an end to meet and you're using someone else to meet it. That's objectification.


How do we go about abolishing love anyway?
By promoting self love.

Well, at least you're giving ideas instead of picking a random aspect of society to criticize without understanding why that aspect of society exists
thett3
Posts: 14,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 7:19:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 7:04:37 PM, Harper wrote:
But I don't think most people want to love only themselves. I love myself. I also enjoy loving others and I don't think I'm unique at all. The way that I love myself is completely different from the way that I love others What makes self love and loving others mutually exclusive? They are different things.

Loving yourself is most definitely different: it is pure, it is much more intimate, it is better for you. When someone else is hurt you are only affected secondarily. When you are hurt you are affected primarily. That is the difference.

You still haven't explained why they're mutually exclusive. I disagree that loving yourself is superior to loving others, but your argument is fundamentally that we cannot do both. You've yet to explain why we must choose one over the other.

I also object to the idea that love can only possibly exist when you know the object of your love. I mean, knowing the other person is obviously important but I don't think that's what you meant. Knowing the person is a necessary but not sufficient condition for love, there is so much more that goes into these things which is why self love is never going to be able to replicate the love one feels for their family or for a partner, or even a friend.

One can only truly know oneself as the filters of spoken word and social restraint are not known to an individual with regards to oneself. Therefore any form of self love is always infinitely purer and truer than external love.

This doesn't follow because it's a completely different form of love--besides people don't truly know themselves anyway. There are all sorts of things we hide even from ourselves like repressed memories and many of our actions stem from our insecurities and refusal to admit our weaknesses even to ourselves.

Of course most people don't know themselves but every individual has the potential to do so and even if this potential is absent (as in they physically cannot know who they are) what they know of themselves is guaranteed to be infinitely truer than what they claim to know about others. Because when it comes to knowing yourself you will have access to the source of who you are-- your thoughts whereas when it comes to knowing others you must rely on their words, a mere secondary source which can easily be filtered. Allowing you no true way of knowing them.

And how can you love someone if you don't even know who they are? You're just setting yourself up for failure there. If person A claims that they love person B and feel he or she is fantastic and it turns out that the other person's mean spirited or rude, did person A ever really love the other individual? Or did they just love who they thought person B was? This is why knowing them is foundational-- you can't know how you feel about someone if you don't know who that person is.

This is why knowing someone is a necessary but not sufficient condition for external love. You should really take care to ensure that you understand what is written before you make your response. I don't mean this in a finger wagging or a passive aggressive type way, but my argument is that you are simultaneously overstating how much one can know themselves while understating how well one can know others. Moreover, your claim that you cannot love someone without knowing them totally defeats your entire argument as we cannot know ourselves entirely--like most things, there's a limit. We have to know people to a certain level in order to love them, but eventually you start getting diminishing returns.

Loving another person romantically demands that you are emotionally dependent on them, enslaving yourself and your mind.

That's not what slavery means. If we have to put an economic spin on it (bad idea because these fundamental aspects of humanity are so much greater than any economic theory could ever explain), it's much more akin to what you said below: a trade off.

But why go through with the trade off if there is something much better for you? When you are in love with someone else they have almost full control of your emotions-- that is emotional slavery.

Because even if I conceded that loving yourself is more important or better than loving others, I do not concede that you have to choose one or the other. I go through the trade off because it's well worth it.


External love is never unconditional, it is the equivalent to emotional economics-- I'll love you if you love me back.

This is not true. Not even close to true.


Don't just give me empty statements, support your arguments.

I don't know how to argue against this. All I can offer is that I do love people unconditionally, and there are people I know who love me the same way. In reality, you're the one who made the claim that unconditional love can't exist. I know you're wrong because it's something I experience every day. Is it your contention that I am deluding myself?

Why subject yourself to all this when you can love yourself? And the fact that I have to prove to you that being seen as an object as opposed to a free individual is laughable.

You have to prove that being viewed as an object by exceptionally shallow people who I would not enter into a relationship with to begin with somehow outweighs the benefit of love and of being loved.

Every relationship is based on objectification: you have a goal or an end to meet and you're using someone else to meet it. That's objectification.

Lol, whatever. If my "goal" is to find a loving and meaningful relationship with someone I care about, that person has the same goal and we work together to enrich each others lives, I hardly think that counts as "objectification". Like, you can probably define objectification in such a way that it encompasses that, but we can play semantics all day long and you're denying the general connotation of the word. At the end of the day, if that's what you deem to be objectification than I have no issue with it and you haven't given me a reason to reconsider my position.


How do we go about abolishing love anyway?
By promoting self love.

Well, at least you're giving ideas instead of picking a random aspect of society to criticize without understanding why that aspect of society exists
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 7:19:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why is trying to attract a mate bad?

Because you're putting your own personality and your own self expression at jeopardy as you are at the mercy of the opposite sex.

Even if you could prove that the majority of women like this (good luck), your argument still fails to be persuasive because you haven't and cannot possibly prove that all women are like this, thus giving me no reason not to seek out those who aren't.

Women are always more attracted to "risky" and "rebellious" men because those are traits associated with masculinity. Thus, making the "bad boy" or "alpha male" personas more attractive to women.
thett3
Posts: 14,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 7:29:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 7:19:32 PM, Harper wrote:
Why is trying to attract a mate bad?

Because you're putting your own personality and your own self expression at jeopardy as you are at the mercy of the opposite sex.

Unless you do whatever you want to do, whenever you want to do it, and however you want to do it *all the time* you're limiting your self expression due to the rules assigned to you by society. Again, you're simply not making arguments here. We are a social species, why should it bother me if tons of people enjoy themselves better by sacrificing a tiny part of their individuality so that their interactions with others are more pleasant? A good example of this could be someone deciding to brush their teeth in the morning even if they wouldn't do so if they weren't interacting with others. That's putting the choice of what you would do with your body if you had full autonomy at the "mercy" of society.


Even if you could prove that the majority of women like this (good luck), your argument still fails to be persuasive because you haven't and cannot possibly prove that all women are like this, thus giving me no reason not to seek out those who aren't.

Women are always more attracted to "risky" and "rebellious" men because those are traits associated with masculinity. Thus, making the "bad boy" or "alpha male" personas more attractive to women.

They are not always attracted to that. There are women who are not even attracted to men at all. For you to claim that all women all have the same sexual preferences is utterly absurd--this is a super dangerous myth that is used *a lot* to justify misogyny.

I will grant you that women are generally attracted to what society deems to be masculine traits, but there are a lot of caveats to that. Not only does this fail to encompass all women (thus rendering your argument for unsound), but traits deemed to be masculine differ by society. Moreover, they aren't *only* attracted to these traits, and even if they were why is sexual selection a problem?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 7:40:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In response to thett3's last post:

External and self love are mutually exclusive because when you love someone you must nurture them, like allowing them to be free for example. Meaning when you love yourself you must allow yourself to be free but loving another puts you in shackles.

If knowledge of who the person is isn't a condition for love, then what do you suppose they is? Don't simply refute, give me alternatives that support your refutation. And to restate: your love for yourself will always be better than external love because you will always know yourself better than you know anyone else. Thus, self love is founded on a more solid base. I already acknowledged that you cannot always fully know yourself, and I proved that it was the purer of the two. You too must work on reading your opponent's statements.
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 7:56:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Unless you do whatever you want to do, whenever you want to do it, and however you want to do it *all the time* you're limiting your self expression due to the rules assigned to you by society. Again, you're simply not making arguments here.


I am against all attempts by society to limit individual freedom.

We are a social species, why should it bother me if tons of people enjoy themselves better by sacrificing a tiny part of their individuality so that their interactions with others are more pleasant? A good example of this could be someone deciding to brush their teeth in the morning even if they wouldn't do so if they weren't interacting with others. That's putting the choice of what you would do with your body if you had full autonomy at the "mercy" of society.

Actually, you should brush your teeth regardless for health reasons. Bad example. And the only reason we are social is to divide labor. You do not need to sacrifice any part of your personality to work.

Even if you could prove that the majority of women like this (good luck), your argument still fails to be persuasive because you haven't and cannot possibly prove that all women are like this, thus giving me no reason not to seek out those who aren't.

Women are always more attracted to "risky" and "rebellious" men because those are traits associated with masculinity. Thus, making the "bad boy" or "alpha male" personas more attractive to women.

They are not always attracted to that. There are women who are not even attracted to men at all. For you to claim that all women all have the same sexual preferences is utterly absurd--this is a super dangerous myth that is used *a lot* to justify misogyny.

I will grant you that women are generally attracted to what society deems to be masculine traits, but there are a lot of caveats to that. Not only does this fail to encompass all women (thus rendering your argument for unsound), but traits deemed to be masculine differ by society. Moreover, they aren't *only* attracted to these traits, and even if they were why is sexual selection a problem?

I have already explained to you why sexual selection is a problem. Reread the other posts. And I don't think all women are like this, but you cannot deny that the majority are. I am talking general cases.