Total Posts:111|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

MRA activists generally have mommy issues

bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 5:44:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This proves it. http://www.buzzfeed.com...

Most people come to MRA because they have mommy issues.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 8:23:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think that there's really a lot more going on than that. The men's right's movement isn't something I'd be wiling to affiliate myself with (really, because other than supporting the Democratic party, I don't do politics), but I think that the social dialogue that the MRers and radical feminists engage in is really interesting. They're both on the same plane of consciousness, within the same spectrum, just on opposite ends. The fact that there are even people on that plane/spectrum, though, is really intriguing.... at least psychologically.

If I had all the time in the world I would totally go through and critique both, but, really... I don't even think many on DDO would appreciate it. But, in their own way, fringe social movements are interesting to watch.
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 8:38:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Blue Sources

bluesteel : This proves it. http://www.buzzfeed.com...

Most people come to MRA because they have mommy issues.

The Fool: That right. Buzzfeed, a Well known Feminist propaganda and Misandrous platform version is really TRUST worthy on what it says about MRA's. This is not like my articles which are from the mouth of Feminists, not there opposition.. That's the different between me and you.

Against The Ideologist


And 1
"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
2/18/2015 8:41:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Blue Sources

The Fool: You love that kind of source..
<(XD)

http://www.buzzfeed.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
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 9:13:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think you're selling the MRA movement short by pathologising it, but regardless, it's not going anywhere.

The MRA movement won't go anywhere because feminists (mostly women; God help the castrated, feminist men, lol) operate on emotions, not logic and/or statistics. The whole premise of feminism can only be accepted from an emotional point of view, elsewise it can easily be seen as the distorted world-view that it is. Women tend to value feelings over everything else, hence why the feeling based feminism premise appeals to them so much; that women need to fight for women's right oppression of x, y and z when it has not been established that oppression even exists. MRAs with legitimate arguments (some of them probably do have "mommy issues"), trying to convince the feminists that they are wrong about things, would be like a teacher trying to explain to an elementary school student trying to read Kant: the child has not the mind-set to be able to process such information.

The other reason the MRA movement won't go anywhere is because women are far more hive-mind and caring towards their own gender than men. That's why when you talk to men (generally, of course), they will talk about the economy, the football game and anything other than their feelings. This kind of self-neglect manifests in things like going to the doctor, too. Sometimes, men will even go as far as to preference women over themselves based on no other reason than: she's a woman. This has evolutionary roots in that evolutionary speaking, an ejaculation is easy and abundant, whilst a womb and 9 months until pregnancy is far more limited. On the other hand, women, generally, are nothing like this. Women have an in-built, sex preference for their own sex. When women hear a man and a woman talking about feminism and Men's rights, on average, women will agree with feminist argumentation based purely on a woman saying it.

This isn't to say that there isn't a need for Women's rights or that Women's rights can't be logically argued for, it's just that feminist narrative and argumentation is always illogical due to its premise.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 9:27:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 9:13:02 PM, Zarroette wrote:
I think you're selling the MRA movement short by pathologising it, but regardless, it's not going anywhere.

The MRA movement won't go anywhere because feminists (mostly women; God help the castrated, feminist men, lol) operate on emotions, not logic and/or statistics. The whole premise of feminism can only be accepted from an emotional point of view, elsewise it can easily be seen as the distorted world-view that it is. Women tend to value feelings over everything else, hence why the feeling based feminism premise appeals to them so much; that women need to fight for women's right oppression of x, y and z when it has not been established that oppression even exists. MRAs with legitimate arguments (some of them probably do have "mommy issues"), trying to convince the feminists that they are wrong about things, would be like a teacher trying to explain to an elementary school student trying to read Kant: the child has not the mind-set to be able to process such information.

The other reason the MRA movement won't go anywhere is because women are far more hive-mind and caring towards their own gender than men. That's why when you talk to men (generally, of course), they will talk about the economy, the football game and anything other than their feelings. This kind of self-neglect manifests in things like going to the doctor, too. Sometimes, men will even go as far as to preference women over themselves based on no other reason than: she's a woman. This has evolutionary roots in that evolutionary speaking, an ejaculation is easy and abundant, whilst a womb and 9 months until pregnancy is far more limited. On the other hand, women, generally, are nothing like this. Women have an in-built, sex preference for their own sex. When women hear a man and a woman talking about feminism and Men's rights, on average, women will agree with feminist argumentation based purely on a woman saying it.

This isn't to say that there isn't a need for Women's rights or that Women's rights can't be logically argued for, it's just that feminist narrative and argumentation is always illogical due to its premise.

What definition of feminism are you using here?

There are certain things in your post that seem like the kind of pseudoscientific nonsense you would see in sociology or evolutionary psychology. Like "Women tend to value feelings over everything else". Where is this corroborated in any legitimate neuroscience or psychology literature?
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 9:37:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 9:27:57 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:13:02 PM, Zarroette wrote:
I think you're selling the MRA movement short by pathologising it, but regardless, it's not going anywhere.

The MRA movement won't go anywhere because feminists (mostly women; God help the castrated, feminist men, lol) operate on emotions, not logic and/or statistics. The whole premise of feminism can only be accepted from an emotional point of view, elsewise it can easily be seen as the distorted world-view that it is. Women tend to value feelings over everything else, hence why the feeling based feminism premise appeals to them so much; that women need to fight for women's right oppression of x, y and z when it has not been established that oppression even exists. MRAs with legitimate arguments (some of them probably do have "mommy issues"), trying to convince the feminists that they are wrong about things, would be like a teacher trying to explain to an elementary school student trying to read Kant: the child has not the mind-set to be able to process such information.

The other reason the MRA movement won't go anywhere is because women are far more hive-mind and caring towards their own gender than men. That's why when you talk to men (generally, of course), they will talk about the economy, the football game and anything other than their feelings. This kind of self-neglect manifests in things like going to the doctor, too. Sometimes, men will even go as far as to preference women over themselves based on no other reason than: she's a woman. This has evolutionary roots in that evolutionary speaking, an ejaculation is easy and abundant, whilst a womb and 9 months until pregnancy is far more limited. On the other hand, women, generally, are nothing like this. Women have an in-built, sex preference for their own sex. When women hear a man and a woman talking about feminism and Men's rights, on average, women will agree with feminist argumentation based purely on a woman saying it.

This isn't to say that there isn't a need for Women's rights or that Women's rights can't be logically argued for, it's just that feminist narrative and argumentation is always illogical due to its premise.

What definition of feminism are you using here?

I am denouncing all brands of feminism, be it 3rd Wave or 1st Wave. Furthermore, I am attacking feminism in reality, rather than merely a definition which does not reflect reality (e.g. feminism is about equal rights). As a warning, I have no interest in playing semantics with you.


There are certain things in your post that seem like the kind of pseudoscientific nonsense you would see in sociology or evolutionary psychology.

Sure, some sociology and evolutionary psychology can be "pseudoscientific" (especially the former), but if you're going to label all of it as that, you better have read millions of different papers on them and have a water-tight counter-argument, otherwise you're going to be made a fool.

Like "Women tend to value feelings over everything else". Where is this corroborated in any legitimate neuroscience or psychology literature?

Brain hardwiring in women connects mainly from left to right, whereas it connects mainly from top to bottom with men. This produces vastly different cognitive tendencies and abilities in men and women, such as women have, usually, far superior intuition which automatically recognises meaning behind various facial expressions.

http://www.independent.co.uk...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 9:40:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Because insulting its proponents totally delegitimatizes it. Sure.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 9:51:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Reality Denied

deniableReality : There are certain things in your post that seem like the kind of pseudoscientific nonsense you would see in sociology or evolutionary psychology.

The Fool: I'm sorry feminism is not scientific at all. I would even say religious in some ways. Sociology is half-and-half science. Evolutionary psychology is definitely science.. As scientific as any aspect of evolutionary natural science.

"Evolutionary psychology (EP) is an approach in the social and natural sciences that examines psychological structure from a modern evolutionary perspective."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

UndeniableRealit: Like "Women tend to value feelings over everything else".

The Fool: Perhaps she say that on average women tend to be more emotional, which is demonstrated in neuroscience, but how the brain is affected by the menstrual cycle. And similarly more likely be persuaded by emotional rhetoric rather than reason. They tend to, on average, avoid extremely dry subjects like pure mathematics, and or pure logic, and or reason and fields like computer science, analytic philosophy, Physics and engineering. There are more susceptible to fallacies like appealing to emotion..

UndeniableRealit : Where is this corroborated in any legitimate neuroscience or psychology literature?

The Fool: As refuted.. Indefinitely..

Against The Ideologist

Taking reality back..
"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
2/18/2015 9:55:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Fixed
*The Fool: Perhaps she [should have said] that on average women tend to be more emotional, which is demonstrated in neuroscience, but how the brain is affected by the menstrual cycle. And similarly more likely be persuaded by emotional rhetoric rather than reason..

Against The Crazies
"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
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 9:58:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 9:37:29 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:27:57 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:13:02 PM, Zarroette wrote:
I think you're selling the MRA movement short by pathologising it, but regardless, it's not going anywhere.

The MRA movement won't go anywhere because feminists (mostly women; God help the castrated, feminist men, lol) operate on emotions, not logic and/or statistics. The whole premise of feminism can only be accepted from an emotional point of view, elsewise it can easily be seen as the distorted world-view that it is. Women tend to value feelings over everything else, hence why the feeling based feminism premise appeals to them so much; that women need to fight for women's right oppression of x, y and z when it has not been established that oppression even exists. MRAs with legitimate arguments (some of them probably do have "mommy issues"), trying to convince the feminists that they are wrong about things, would be like a teacher trying to explain to an elementary school student trying to read Kant: the child has not the mind-set to be able to process such information.

The other reason the MRA movement won't go anywhere is because women are far more hive-mind and caring towards their own gender than men. That's why when you talk to men (generally, of course), they will talk about the economy, the football game and anything other than their feelings. This kind of self-neglect manifests in things like going to the doctor, too. Sometimes, men will even go as far as to preference women over themselves based on no other reason than: she's a woman. This has evolutionary roots in that evolutionary speaking, an ejaculation is easy and abundant, whilst a womb and 9 months until pregnancy is far more limited. On the other hand, women, generally, are nothing like this. Women have an in-built, sex preference for their own sex. When women hear a man and a woman talking about feminism and Men's rights, on average, women will agree with feminist argumentation based purely on a woman saying it.

This isn't to say that there isn't a need for Women's rights or that Women's rights can't be logically argued for, it's just that feminist narrative and argumentation is always illogical due to its premise.

What definition of feminism are you using here?

I am denouncing all brands of feminism, be it 3rd Wave or 1st Wave. Furthermore, I am attacking feminism in reality, rather than merely a definition which does not reflect reality (e.g. feminism is about equal rights). As a warning, I have no interest in playing semantics with you.


This is not an attempt to play semantic games. It is an attempt to understand your post better.


There are certain things in your post that seem like the kind of pseudoscientific nonsense you would see in sociology or evolutionary psychology.

Sure, some sociology and evolutionary psychology can be "pseudoscientific" (especially the former), but if you're going to label all of it as that, you better have read millions of different papers on them and have a water-tight counter-argument, otherwise you're going to be made a fool.


Yes, I didn't say that the entirety of those fields were pseudoscientific. I'm saying that some subset of each of those fields is pseudoscientific. I'm not sure that there even are millions of papers in those fields, but I've only read a few hundred psychology papers. Again, I'm not saying the entirety of sociology or psychology is pseudoscience.

Like "Women tend to value feelings over everything else". Where is this corroborated in any legitimate neuroscience or psychology literature?

Brain hardwiring in women connects mainly from left to right, whereas it connects mainly from top to bottom with men. This produces vastly different cognitive tendencies and abilities in men and women, such as women have, usually, far superior intuition which automatically recognises meaning behind various facial expressions.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

I was hoping you would have some scientific sources. Perhaps you do?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 9:59:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Feminism: Women fighting for their rights because those wicked males oppress them.
Men's Rights Activism: MISOGYNY!
Because society will not listen to the concerns of men, there's no reason for society to listen to the concerns of women. Thus, if MRA is bull, then so is feminism. Next time a woman says that they are being treated unfairly in the United States, I'll just go "MISANDRIST!" and end the conversation just like that. After all, MRAs have been dismissed in a manner identical to this.
There is no room for dialogue about feminism under room is also found for honest dialogue about the MRA.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:00:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 9:59:11 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Feminism: Women fighting for their rights because those wicked males oppress them.
Men's Rights Activism: MISOGYNY!
Because society will not listen to the concerns of men, there's no reason for society to listen to the concerns of women. Thus, if MRA is bull, then so is feminism. Next time a woman says that they are being treated unfairly in the United States, I'll just go "MISANDRIST!" and end the conversation just like that. After all, MRAs have been dismissed in a manner identical to this.
There is no room for dialogue about feminism until room is also found for honest dialogue about the MRA.

Fixed
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:02:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 9:51:09 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Reality Denied


deniableReality : There are certain things in your post that seem like the kind of pseudoscientific nonsense you would see in sociology or evolutionary psychology.

The Fool: I'm sorry feminism is not scientific at all. I would even say religious in some ways. Sociology is half-and-half science. Evolutionary psychology is definitely science.. As scientific as any aspect of evolutionary natural science.

"Evolutionary psychology (EP) is an approach in the social and natural sciences that examines psychological structure from a modern evolutionary perspective."
http://en.wikipedia.org...


I'm familiar with the field. A significant subset of it is is not scientific but is presented as such. And yes, feminism is not scientific. I was specifically addressing some of the claims about human females, not feminism itself.

UndeniableRealit: Like "Women tend to value feelings over everything else".

The Fool: Perhaps she say that on average women tend to be more emotional, which is demonstrated in neuroscience, but how the brain is affected by the menstrual cycle. And similarly more likely be persuaded by emotional rhetoric rather than reason. They tend to, on average, avoid extremely dry subjects like pure mathematics, and or pure logic, and or reason and fields like computer science, analytic philosophy, Physics and engineering. There are more susceptible to fallacies like appealing to emotion..

I gave her the benefit of the doubt by assuming that is what she meant. Again, what I'm looking for is hard evidence in the neuroscientific literature. All of the differences you have mentioned are currently in dispute in the literature, from my readings. I was hoping someone knew which papers I should read on this.

UndeniableRealit : Where is this corroborated in any legitimate neuroscience or psychology literature?

The Fool: As refuted.. Indefinitely..

Against The Ideologist

Taking reality back..

AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:07:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 9:37:29 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:27:57 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:13:02 PM, Zarroette wrote:
I think you're selling the MRA movement short by pathologising it, but regardless, it's not going anywhere.

The MRA movement won't go anywhere because feminists (mostly women; God help the castrated, feminist men, lol) operate on emotions, not logic and/or statistics. The whole premise of feminism can only be accepted from an emotional point of view, elsewise it can easily be seen as the distorted world-view that it is. Women tend to value feelings over everything else, hence why the feeling based feminism premise appeals to them so much; that women need to fight for women's right oppression of x, y and z when it has not been established that oppression even exists. MRAs with legitimate arguments (some of them probably do have "mommy issues"), trying to convince the feminists that they are wrong about things, would be like a teacher trying to explain to an elementary school student trying to read Kant: the child has not the mind-set to be able to process such information.

The other reason the MRA movement won't go anywhere is because women are far more hive-mind and caring towards their own gender than men. That's why when you talk to men (generally, of course), they will talk about the economy, the football game and anything other than their feelings. This kind of self-neglect manifests in things like going to the doctor, too. Sometimes, men will even go as far as to preference women over themselves based on no other reason than: she's a woman. This has evolutionary roots in that evolutionary speaking, an ejaculation is easy and abundant, whilst a womb and 9 months until pregnancy is far more limited. On the other hand, women, generally, are nothing like this. Women have an in-built, sex preference for their own sex. When women hear a man and a woman talking about feminism and Men's rights, on average, women will agree with feminist argumentation based purely on a woman saying it.

This isn't to say that there isn't a need for Women's rights or that Women's rights can't be logically argued for, it's just that feminist narrative and argumentation is always illogical due to its premise.

What definition of feminism are you using here?

I am denouncing all brands of feminism, be it 3rd Wave or 1st Wave. Furthermore, I am attacking feminism in reality, rather than merely a definition which does not reflect reality (e.g. feminism is about equal rights). As a warning, I have no interest in playing semantics with you.


There are certain things in your post that seem like the kind of pseudoscientific nonsense you would see in sociology or evolutionary psychology.

Sure, some sociology and evolutionary psychology can be "pseudoscientific" (especially the former), but if you're going to label all of it as that, you better have read millions of different papers on them and have a water-tight counter-argument, otherwise you're going to be made a fool.

Like "Women tend to value feelings over everything else". Where is this corroborated in any legitimate neuroscience or psychology literature?

Brain hardwiring in women connects mainly from left to right, whereas it connects mainly from top to bottom with men. This produces vastly different cognitive tendencies and abilities in men and women, such as women have, usually, far superior intuition which automatically recognises meaning behind various facial expressions.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

May I ask why you denounce all waves of feminism?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:10:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:07:46 PM, AFism wrote:

AFism : May I ask why you denounce all waves of feminism?

The Fool: when you post can you delete the unnecessary access, so it doesn't take up so much of the page. It ends up spreading information so far apart... Making the discussion all disjointed..
"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
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:15:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 9:58:24 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:37:29 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:27:57 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:13:02 PM, Zarroette wrote:
I think you're selling the MRA movement short by pathologising it, but regardless, it's not going anywhere.

The MRA movement won't go anywhere because feminists (mostly women; God help the castrated, feminist men, lol) operate on emotions, not logic and/or statistics. The whole premise of feminism can only be accepted from an emotional point of view, elsewise it can easily be seen as the distorted world-view that it is. Women tend to value feelings over everything else, hence why the feeling based feminism premise appeals to them so much; that women need to fight for women's right oppression of x, y and z when it has not been established that oppression even exists. MRAs with legitimate arguments (some of them probably do have "mommy issues"), trying to convince the feminists that they are wrong about things, would be like a teacher trying to explain to an elementary school student trying to read Kant: the child has not the mind-set to be able to process such information.

The other reason the MRA movement won't go anywhere is because women are far more hive-mind and caring towards their own gender than men. That's why when you talk to men (generally, of course), they will talk about the economy, the football game and anything other than their feelings. This kind of self-neglect manifests in things like going to the doctor, too. Sometimes, men will even go as far as to preference women over themselves based on no other reason than: she's a woman. This has evolutionary roots in that evolutionary speaking, an ejaculation is easy and abundant, whilst a womb and 9 months until pregnancy is far more limited. On the other hand, women, generally, are nothing like this. Women have an in-built, sex preference for their own sex. When women hear a man and a woman talking about feminism and Men's rights, on average, women will agree with feminist argumentation based purely on a woman saying it.

This isn't to say that there isn't a need for Women's rights or that Women's rights can't be logically argued for, it's just that feminist narrative and argumentation is always illogical due to its premise.

What definition of feminism are you using here?

I am denouncing all brands of feminism, be it 3rd Wave or 1st Wave. Furthermore, I am attacking feminism in reality, rather than merely a definition which does not reflect reality (e.g. feminism is about equal rights). As a warning, I have no interest in playing semantics with you.


This is not an attempt to play semantic games. It is an attempt to understand your post better.

That's a contradiction. You cannot say that you have not attempted ploys at semantics when you have specifically requested a definition. Semantics is about meaning of words, which is precisely what you brought up in asking for a definition.



There are certain things in your post that seem like the kind of pseudoscientific nonsense you would see in sociology or evolutionary psychology.

Sure, some sociology and evolutionary psychology can be "pseudoscientific" (especially the former), but if you're going to label all of it as that, you better have read millions of different papers on them and have a water-tight counter-argument, otherwise you're going to be made a fool.


Yes, I didn't say that the entirety of those fields were pseudoscientific. I'm saying that some subset of each of those fields is pseudoscientific. I'm not sure that there even are millions of papers in those fields, but I've only read a few hundred psychology papers. Again, I'm not saying the entirety of sociology or psychology is pseudoscience.

Fine.


Like "Women tend to value feelings over everything else". Where is this corroborated in any legitimate neuroscience or psychology literature?

Brain hardwiring in women connects mainly from left to right, whereas it connects mainly from top to bottom with men. This produces vastly different cognitive tendencies and abilities in men and women, such as women have, usually, far superior intuition which automatically recognises meaning behind various facial expressions.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

I was hoping you would have some scientific sources. Perhaps you do?

It references a scientific study.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:18:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:07:46 PM, AFism wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:37:29 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:27:57 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:13:02 PM, Zarroette wrote:
I think you're selling the MRA movement short by pathologising it, but regardless, it's not going anywhere.

The MRA movement won't go anywhere because feminists (mostly women; God help the castrated, feminist men, lol) operate on emotions, not logic and/or statistics. The whole premise of feminism can only be accepted from an emotional point of view, elsewise it can easily be seen as the distorted world-view that it is. Women tend to value feelings over everything else, hence why the feeling based feminism premise appeals to them so much; that women need to fight for women's right oppression of x, y and z when it has not been established that oppression even exists. MRAs with legitimate arguments (some of them probably do have "mommy issues"), trying to convince the feminists that they are wrong about things, would be like a teacher trying to explain to an elementary school student trying to read Kant: the child has not the mind-set to be able to process such information.

The other reason the MRA movement won't go anywhere is because women are far more hive-mind and caring towards their own gender than men. That's why when you talk to men (generally, of course), they will talk about the economy, the football game and anything other than their feelings. This kind of self-neglect manifests in things like going to the doctor, too. Sometimes, men will even go as far as to preference women over themselves based on no other reason than: she's a woman. This has evolutionary roots in that evolutionary speaking, an ejaculation is easy and abundant, whilst a womb and 9 months until pregnancy is far more limited. On the other hand, women, generally, are nothing like this. Women have an in-built, sex preference for their own sex. When women hear a man and a woman talking about feminism and Men's rights, on average, women will agree with feminist argumentation based purely on a woman saying it.

This isn't to say that there isn't a need for Women's rights or that Women's rights can't be logically argued for, it's just that feminist narrative and argumentation is always illogical due to its premise.

What definition of feminism are you using here?

I am denouncing all brands of feminism, be it 3rd Wave or 1st Wave. Furthermore, I am attacking feminism in reality, rather than merely a definition which does not reflect reality (e.g. feminism is about equal rights). As a warning, I have no interest in playing semantics with you.


There are certain things in your post that seem like the kind of pseudoscientific nonsense you would see in sociology or evolutionary psychology.

Sure, some sociology and evolutionary psychology can be "pseudoscientific" (especially the former), but if you're going to label all of it as that, you better have read millions of different papers on them and have a water-tight counter-argument, otherwise you're going to be made a fool.

Like "Women tend to value feelings over everything else". Where is this corroborated in any legitimate neuroscience or psychology literature?

Brain hardwiring in women connects mainly from left to right, whereas it connects mainly from top to bottom with men. This produces vastly different cognitive tendencies and abilities in men and women, such as women have, usually, far superior intuition which automatically recognises meaning behind various facial expressions.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

May I ask why you denounce all waves of feminism?

They all come from the same faulty premise of focusing solely on women's issues (or perceived women's issues as 3rd Wave feminism has it), rather than society as a whole. You cannot balance an equation by looking at only one side.
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:21:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:10:40 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:07:46 PM, AFism wrote:

sure
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:21:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Reality Denied
Part 2

UndeniableRealit :Again, what I'm looking for is hard evidence in the neuroscientific literature.

UndeniableRealit :All of the differences you have mentioned are currently in dispute in the literature, from my readings.

The Fool: They are disputed because of feminism.. That is, no matter what differences there are, though always be controversial because the premise of feminism, is that there is no significant psychological differences. This is ideology, overriding actual science in our universities.. They're not a legitimate dispute. Go get your disputes.

Secondly, It's not a knowing papers, it's a matter of work going to get them. You make it sound like it's fun... All get it anyways, but if you study psychology, it should be common sense that are much more likely to suffer from depression, and/or be bipolar, which for the most part are neurological, that is, they're more likely to suffer from mood related disorders, that is, emotional related disorders" That is, an imbalance of emotions. PMS is an obvious, example if you truly are student of psychology.

I have wrote a lot on this topic already:
http://www.debate.org...


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
2/18/2015 10:23:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
AFism : sure

The Fool: Sorry, not trying to pick on you. A lot of people do it. Yours was just that one that annoyed me last.
"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
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:23:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:15:37 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:58:24 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:37:29 PM, Zarroette wrote:
What definition of feminism are you using here?

I am denouncing all brands of feminism, be it 3rd Wave or 1st Wave. Furthermore, I am attacking feminism in reality, rather than merely a definition which does not reflect reality (e.g. feminism is about equal rights). As a warning, I have no interest in playing semantics with you.


This is not an attempt to play semantic games. It is an attempt to understand your post better.

That's a contradiction. You cannot say that you have not attempted ploys at semantics when you have specifically requested a definition. Semantics is about meaning of words, which is precisely what you brought up in asking for a definition.


If I said that this wasn't an attempt to understand the semantic content of your post, then it would have been a contradiction. You are equating clarifying definitions with playing semantic games. These are not equivalent.



There are certain things in your post that seem like the kind of pseudoscientific nonsense you would see in sociology or evolutionary psychology.

Sure, some sociology and evolutionary psychology can be "pseudoscientific" (especially the former), but if you're going to label all of it as that, you better have read millions of different papers on them and have a water-tight counter-argument, otherwise you're going to be made a fool.


Yes, I didn't say that the entirety of those fields were pseudoscientific. I'm saying that some subset of each of those fields is pseudoscientific. I'm not sure that there even are millions of papers in those fields, but I've only read a few hundred psychology papers. Again, I'm not saying the entirety of sociology or psychology is pseudoscience.

Fine.

I'm glad we clarified that.



Like "Women tend to value feelings over everything else". Where is this corroborated in any legitimate neuroscience or psychology literature?

Brain hardwiring in women connects mainly from left to right, whereas it connects mainly from top to bottom with men. This produces vastly different cognitive tendencies and abilities in men and women, such as women have, usually, far superior intuition which automatically recognises meaning behind various facial expressions.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

I was hoping you would have some scientific sources. Perhaps you do?

It references a scientific study.

It talks about a study, but I don't see a reference to the study itself. I don't get my information from news articles about science - they rarely correctly represent the actual study they are talking about, unfortunately. The article itself contains very little content.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:25:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:18:07 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:07:46 PM, AFism wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:37:29 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:27:57 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:13:02 PM, Zarroette wrote:
I think you're selling the MRA movement short by pathologising it, but regardless, it's not going anywhere.

The MRA movement won't go anywhere because feminists (mostly women; God help the castrated, feminist men, lol) operate on emotions, not logic and/or statistics. The whole premise of feminism can only be accepted from an emotional point of view, elsewise it can easily be seen as the distorted world-view that it is. Women tend to value feelings over everything else, hence why the feeling based feminism premise appeals to them so much; that women need to fight for women's right oppression of x, y and z when it has not been established that oppression even exists. MRAs with legitimate arguments (some of them probably do have "mommy issues"), trying to convince the feminists that they are wrong about things, would be like a teacher trying to explain to an elementary school student trying to read Kant: the child has not the mind-set to be able to process such information.

The other reason the MRA movement won't go anywhere is because women are far more hive-mind and caring towards their own gender than men. That's why when you talk to men (generally, of course), they will talk about the economy, the football game and anything other than their feelings. This kind of self-neglect manifests in things like going to the doctor, too. Sometimes, men will even go as far as to preference women over themselves based on no other reason than: she's a woman. This has evolutionary roots in that evolutionary speaking, an ejaculation is easy and abundant, whilst a womb and 9 months until pregnancy is far more limited. On the other hand, women, generally, are nothing like this. Women have an in-built, sex preference for their own sex. When women hear a man and a woman talking about feminism and Men's rights, on average, women will agree with feminist argumentation based purely on a woman saying it.

This isn't to say that there isn't a need for Women's rights or that Women's rights can't be logically argued for, it's just that feminist narrative and argumentation is always illogical due to its premise.

What definition of feminism are you using here?

I am denouncing all brands of feminism, be it 3rd Wave or 1st Wave. Furthermore, I am attacking feminism in reality, rather than merely a definition which does not reflect reality (e.g. feminism is about equal rights). As a warning, I have no interest in playing semantics with you.


There are certain things in your post that seem like the kind of pseudoscientific nonsense you would see in sociology or evolutionary psychology.

Sure, some sociology and evolutionary psychology can be "pseudoscientific" (especially the former), but if you're going to label all of it as that, you better have read millions of different papers on them and have a water-tight counter-argument, otherwise you're going to be made a fool.

Like "Women tend to value feelings over everything else". Where is this corroborated in any legitimate neuroscience or psychology literature?

Brain hardwiring in women connects mainly from left to right, whereas it connects mainly from top to bottom with men. This produces vastly different cognitive tendencies and abilities in men and women, such as women have, usually, far superior intuition which automatically recognises meaning behind various facial expressions.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

May I ask why you denounce all waves of feminism?

They all come from the same faulty premise of focusing solely on women's issues (or perceived women's issues as 3rd Wave feminism has it), rather than society as a whole. You cannot balance an equation by looking at only one side.

I do agree that any movement or proposed solution that does not take into account all affected parties or terms (such as only taking into account women's issues) is not well thought out and ultimately not likely to be viable.
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:31:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
May I ask why you denounce all waves of feminism?

They all come from the same faulty premise of focusing solely on women's issues (or perceived women's issues as 3rd Wave feminism has it), rather than society as a whole. You cannot balance an equation by looking at only one side.

So you would agree with a more nuanced approach that tackles the intersectionality of race/gender/class/creed/sexuality etc. and would agree that separating the latter when fighting for rights would be counter productive?
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:32:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:23:51 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:15:37 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:58:24 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:37:29 PM, Zarroette wrote:
What definition of feminism are you using here?

I am denouncing all brands of feminism, be it 3rd Wave or 1st Wave. Furthermore, I am attacking feminism in reality, rather than merely a definition which does not reflect reality (e.g. feminism is about equal rights). As a warning, I have no interest in playing semantics with you.


This is not an attempt to play semantic games. It is an attempt to understand your post better.

That's a contradiction. You cannot say that you have not attempted ploys at semantics when you have specifically requested a definition. Semantics is about meaning of words, which is precisely what you brought up in asking for a definition.


If I said that this wasn't an attempt to understand the semantic content of your post, then it would have been a contradiction. You are equating clarifying definitions with playing semantic games. These are not equivalent.

You are now playing semantics games with the term "semantics games", lol. I CALLED I BEFORE IT HAPPENED!!




There are certain things in your post that seem like the kind of pseudoscientific nonsense you would see in sociology or evolutionary psychology.

Sure, some sociology and evolutionary psychology can be "pseudoscientific" (especially the former), but if you're going to label all of it as that, you better have read millions of different papers on them and have a water-tight counter-argument, otherwise you're going to be made a fool.


Yes, I didn't say that the entirety of those fields were pseudoscientific. I'm saying that some subset of each of those fields is pseudoscientific. I'm not sure that there even are millions of papers in those fields, but I've only read a few hundred psychology papers. Again, I'm not saying the entirety of sociology or psychology is pseudoscience.

Fine.

I'm glad we clarified that.



Like "Women tend to value feelings over everything else". Where is this corroborated in any legitimate neuroscience or psychology literature?

Brain hardwiring in women connects mainly from left to right, whereas it connects mainly from top to bottom with men. This produces vastly different cognitive tendencies and abilities in men and women, such as women have, usually, far superior intuition which automatically recognises meaning behind various facial expressions.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

I was hoping you would have some scientific sources. Perhaps you do?

It references a scientific study.

It talks about a study, but I don't see a reference to the study itself. I don't get my information from news articles about science - they rarely correctly represent the actual study they are talking about, unfortunately. The article itself contains very little content.

http://www.pnas.org...
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:34:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:21:55 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Reality Denied
Part 2

UndeniableRealit :Again, what I'm looking for is hard evidence in the neuroscientific literature.

UndeniableRealit :All of the differences you have mentioned are currently in dispute in the literature, from my readings.

The Fool: They are disputed because of feminism.. That is, no matter what differences there are, though always be controversial because the premise of feminism, is that there is no significant psychological differences. This is ideology, overriding actual science in our universities.. They're not a legitimate dispute. Go get your disputes.


No, they are disputed because the results are not yet consistent across all studies for several proposed effects, such as differences in math abilities. There are studies that have shown the differences in math abilities disappear if the test administer is female, or due to other changes. I didn't save this paper, so if you're interested, I'll have to dig it up for you. The point is it is not completely clear, in every case, which of these differences are biological and which are due to social conditioning. That will still take several years to parse.

Secondly, It's not a knowing papers, it's a matter of work going to get them. You make it sound like it's fun... All get it anyways, but if you study psychology, it should be common sense that are much more likely to suffer from depression, and/or be bipolar, which for the most part are neurological, that is, they're more likely to suffer from mood related disorders, that is, emotional related disorders" That is, an imbalance of emotions. PMS is an obvious, example if you truly are student of psychology.


Common sense is not particularly acceptable in science. But that's besides the point. And yes, I do think science is fun. Hard work, but also fun. Yes, women are much more likely to be diagnosed with mood disorders than men. The size of the difference in actual incidence of depression is not perfectly clear, because diagnosis rates are not a sufficient statistic for incidence rates. Either way, I agree. It sounds like you think I'm claiming that men and women are not significantly different on any measure. That is not true.

I have wrote a lot on this topic already:
http://www.debate.org...



Against The Ideologist


(To be continued)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:34:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Fixed
*The Fool: if you study psychology it should be common sense that [woman] are much more likely to suffer from depression, and/or be bipolar, which for the most part are neurological, that is, they're more likely to suffer from mood related disorders, that is, emotional related disorders, that is, an imbalance of emotions. PMS is an obvious example emotional inconsistency, which is particular to women.

In other words, you"re being quite demanding, as we have given you plenty of evidence.

Against The Ideologist

This is a great documentary, on how frivolous the disputation is.
"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
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:35:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:31:19 PM, AFism wrote:
May I ask why you denounce all waves of feminism?

They all come from the same faulty premise of focusing solely on women's issues (or perceived women's issues as 3rd Wave feminism has it), rather than society as a whole. You cannot balance an equation by looking at only one side.

So you would agree with a more nuanced approach that tackles the intersectionality of race/gender/class/creed/sexuality etc. and would agree that separating the latter when fighting for rights would be counter productive?

Yes, I agree with the former.

I don't agree with the latter because in order to get people fighting for things, the best way is to emotionally convince people of things, rather than logically. Besides, what I was talking about was having an objective view of things, not about campaigning and rallying. Having the correct view is apriori.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:42:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:32:53 PM, Zarroette wrote:

This is not an attempt to play semantic games. It is an attempt to understand your post better.

That's a contradiction. You cannot say that you have not attempted ploys at semantics when you have specifically requested a definition. Semantics is about meaning of words, which is precisely what you brought up in asking for a definition.


If I said that this wasn't an attempt to understand the semantic content of your post, then it would have been a contradiction. You are equating clarifying definitions with playing semantic games. These are not equivalent.

You are now playing semantics games with the term "semantics games", lol. I CALLED I BEFORE IT HAPPENED!!

I believe you are either confused or trolling. Are you also against defining terms during or prior to debates?

http://www.independent.co.uk...

I was hoping you would have some scientific sources. Perhaps you do?

It references a scientific study.

It talks about a study, but I don't see a reference to the study itself. I don't get my information from news articles about science - they rarely correctly represent the actual study they are talking about, unfortunately. The article itself contains very little content.

http://www.pnas.org...

Much appreciated. Have you read the full pdf yet? This is a DTI neural connectivity study with a few behavioural correlates, none of which are very much related to the claim that you are using this paper to support. Are you sure you're thinking of the right paper?