No I disagree with such nonsense. Have you had a look at my posts here (or on false rape allegations)? I am new to forums, that was my first picture!
(Original post by KimKallstrom)
All this angsty, vitriolic writing full of pointless ad hominem and a picture to say.......... essentially nothing.
OK I'll bite. Let's first talk about the women in the army thing (since that was the post I was replying to). He was saying that he does not agree that women should be on the front line on the basis that there should be no armies full top. It's hard to believe but that was literally his argument.
Are you in agreement with such nonsense? I hope not.
It wasn't an ad hominem attack, I was inferring that contributors should be mentally able to write an opposing/agreeing sentence, I made no assumption that you could so offered 'helpful' mental health direction to a local charity. The pic: I picked a troll with a small head (subtle?) & put a face to you for others to mentally see. Youtube guy said "Gay": wasn't that argumentum ad hominem on When you see it...? U implied it negatively, so inferred that you were saying being gay in a made-fun-of-way manner as bad; hence questioned if u were homophobic & discriminatory. So did I really say "essentially nothing," or did you not wanna analyse it(?)
Your only comments were "No" below my post & "For this and all your feminist posts I say this:" to When you see it... If u gonna disagree well say it properly. How about: how will the country defend itself, avoid other dictatorships, provide jobs for the army as they go back into civvies, when police/fireperson can't handle, etc. Just cause u think its the word of a madman/youngster/idealist/whatever, have the respect to address him. That is all.
I think the more women are on the front line like they are allowed now in OZ (or NZ?) the less fighting there will be; all those bodybags & women with limbs missing. Won't be so heroic anymore.
His recent post showed emotional dishonesty, probably I did not get it as am tired.
"Why are there more men working in high-paying or competetive jobs when, if anything, more women should be working in these jobs (due to women being, on average, better qualified even ignoring intelligence/workrate)? Why are women payed less than men for the same job?"
I'm not gonna pick on him, I'd hoped I had addressed this in my other posts as the nature of wo/men, along with posts #90 & 107, 126 & 128. If I was playing devil's advocate I would fail to win proper arguments For Modern Feminism as there is too much denial!
"why shouldn't earnings be linked to effort?" Talent (Miss World, opera singers), uniqueness, networking, nepotism & luck (timing!) can play a part. Real world is not straightforward.
Last edited by rad_student; 16-01-2012 at 04:19.
If you abolish government and armies everyone will be on the front line everyday of their lives; it would be a return tribal society where instead of worrying about school grades etc, people will be worrying for fear of armed fighters raiding their settlements at night, or whether or not they'll be able to find food. Nations improve peoples lives because people want structure and they want security, in fact without nations the welfare state could not exist as it does today. If all nations were to be torn down, after many years they would just be rebuilt and all the violence and bloodshed which has led up to the relative security we enjoy today would happen all over again.
Last edited by PendulumBoB; 16-01-2012 at 21:54.
(Original post by limetang)
There's also the point that men are more likely to do degrees involving maths, and that such degrees offer better employability (on average) than a good majority of arts degrees.
I think most things which the, "progressive" left puts down to discrimination/classism can be explained in similar ways. Do you think it's possible than generally speaking a man's brain can think in the more concrete ways required to excel is such areas?
Last edited by PendulumBoB; 20-01-2012 at 21:24.