Originally posted by dontreally
You cannot compare the effects of the menstrual cycle on reasoning to the disturbance caused by testosterone. .. [sic] ... To argue [this] is to
engage in reductio ad absurdum.
90% of murders in the U.S approximately are commited by men. If you're talking from an argument of biological determinism then there is your elephant
in the room. A bit of a menopause doesn't seem bad factoring in men's biological capability for aggression. I'm pointing out that your desire to
specifically legislate one gender's decency over anothers is blatantly sexist/stupid and paddling Aristotle's tired brand of sexist nonsense.
Reduction ad absurdum isn't actually a logical fallacy. So classifying my argument does not negate it. I assume you're trying to declare a fallacy?
You may not have read any of these things ...
The constant source name dropping really doesn't help your case. Aquinas, Aristotle, Hegel ... accusing people of not reading. I have read and
studied. I don't feel the need to pull a dusty 1500 year old source out to act superior. I make an argument and I reference it if I need to. It's
the same with the constant John Adam's quoting.
- You believe feminists want to present themselves anyway they want and deny that men are effected by nudity ... (feminist lit covers this all the
- You believe this is an agenda to 'enslave' men through covert means ... (utter nonsense without a single source to back it up other than the
collection of Christian writers and 'adopted' philosophers.)
- You don't want to abolish feminism but ...
feminism is motivated at root against biology, against God; at it's root, it's a rebellion against nature
- You don't believe women are inferior but ...
God provided the basic creation - the feminine, or primal ground (prima materia). Man, in his part, is to bring order to this prima materia by
enacting laws which preserve his inner freedom from external factors.
So, man ADDS to nature. He adds, both in his technological and scientific understanding, as well as in his moral and ethical understanding. Man is a
surplus to the natural order.
This sentence implies that women provide none of these things and that's utter [expletive].
for example the 'masculine' becomes associated with the ideas of causation, abstraction, intellect, activity, positivity etc, while the
feminine becomes the opposite, or derivation of the former qualities: effect, manifestation, emotion, passivity, negativity etc.
Your above quote is basically this:
Woman is more compassionate than man, more easily moved to tears, at the same time is more jealous, more querulous, more apt to scold and to
strike. She is, furthermore, more prone to despondency and less hopeful than the man, more void of shame or self-respect, more false of speech, more
deceptive, and of more retentive memory
History of Animals Aristotle
Which is from the same philosopher that believed women were inferior, should eat half the food of a male, endorsed slavery, and believed it was
natural for women to stay at home, do the house work, rarely go outside, and look after her husbands belongings.
- When asked if you're basing your approach on God and Judeo-Christian morals you hand wave and say it's a mixture and bring up your political
leanings ... you claim to morally lean to conservative Aristotlian Judeo-Christian etc ... but ...
Thomas Aquinas reworked Aristotle to fit with Christianity, and Wiker adopted Aristotle as a conservative. Wiker is a major league intelligent design
advocate/apologist. Which means when someone asks you if you're basing your entire argument off God based morality the answer is a flat yes when you
just list your sources.
- You claim a male dominated industry (comedy) is promoting a lib fem agenda ... The sentence cancels itself ...
This is like when Plato tried to ban poetry. Rape and protection of women
would be a much better argument for morality here than feminist
agenda oppressing your tender eyes. The male run media and objectification of women by men
is a major part of that morality and excess problem.
Yes, 'ordinary' men suffer from that constant influx of media and data but that's not feminists doing. Blaming women for men's sexual excess is
the wrong slope to sit on.
I can see where you are caught. You state men bring morals and ethics, are more rational but one of the first things men did with video cameras was
make pornography. It isn't women's affinity for nature or 'irrationality' that made that happen and I promise you, your children have a lot more
to worry about in this day and age than a pair of breasts.
Ironically there is so many things we would agree on if, apologies for this, you weren't constantly tap dancing to avoid the truth about your logic.
Nice chatting. Think we're done! Have a nice day.