‘Fighting’ doesn’t always mean physical violence though.

If a woman hit me repeatedly and wouldn’t stop I would hit her back - but not full force.

In any relationship between a man and woman if one hits the other end the relationship instantly.

In a relationship between members of the same sex the dynamics are different so violence might help relieve the situation and so I wouldn’t say it is an instant ‘end the relationship’ scenario in every case.

Note: Not quite sure what this has to do with reasons for men hating women (who hits who)?

The reasons men may hate a particular woman is pretty much the same as for why they might hate a particular man. Hating one woman does not make anyone a ‘woman hater’ … I find the idea rather ridiculous and if such a degree of hatred towards a woman existed it would likely stem from a poor relationship with their mother rather than some association with sexual intercourse.

Of course some extreme ‘feminist’ types would then accuse me of ‘blaming women’ for men’s said ‘hatred’ of women. That is nonsense. A person causes someone to hate not an entire category of people. If someone has poor relations with some/any category of people then it is fairly easy to understand why they may overextend such feelings.

I don’t know what could mean to ‘excel at being a woman’ and I stated that it is unlikely to untangle it from culture (you just chose ‘society’ as a replacement for the term ‘culture’).

I don’t think it is hard to argue that men and women are different, but sometimes people forget that compared to most species the distinctions between male and female are small in humans. We can talk about general trends but given that, psychologically speaking, men and women are far more alike than different from individual to individual it is mostly conjecture. We are better off talking about what allows humans to ‘excel’ rather than reduce humans into select categories.

If we are talking about the structure of societies we could even argue about what does and doesn’t constitute a ‘society’ and whether or not social structures inhibit certain aspects of our nature or not. It is endless.

In terms of ‘excelling’ at being a man or a woman my view is that it is completely dependent upon the circumstances said men/women find themselves in. When it comes to circumstances that tilt towards physiological differences then men and women are equipped differently.

When it comes to leadership both masculine and feminine traits serve society. The biggest error in colloquial thought is that ‘masculine’ means ‘male’ and ‘feminine’ means ‘female’. I don’t see how society can shift this thought without destroying the truth of these reasonably distinctive categories that shed light of human psychology. I see it as rather bizarre that women who act like men - buy into power structures and act aggressively and competitively) think they are empowering women … they are neither empowering women nor disempowering women, they are merely empowering the system that is already in place.

I heard an interesting, and highly speculative, idea put forth by the guy who wrote Homosapiens. He posed that males have a better psychological make up for ruling over large portions of the population (with something of a hypnotic effect). I don’t really think so myself but it did make me think about population size versus certain innate psychological traits. I do wonder if certain traits at one level cause problems in leadership roles where at another level they are a boon (in terms of sphere of influence and numbers). For example neuroticism may be extremely useful on a one-to-one basis as it can reveal difficult problems at an intimate level whereas on a large scale it would look more like mob mentality.

Levi-Strauss did a fair bit to show how different family/tribe relations can be. In one instance the mother’s brother had more of a role in bringing up the child than the father - who was more of an uncle weirdly.

The most common factor is simply down to DNA. Brothers sharing a wife makes sense as their family genes are being past on.

In communal living where mother’s and father’s are not known and children mingle they don’t tend to see each other as anything other than brothers and sisters, so that is problematic.

For any large scale society to function for prolonged periods I believe there is a need for higher than normal levels of tolerance (to differing members of said society), or rather a ‘mechanism’ in place that allows different members of a given society to adapt.

Ideas of sex, sexual orientation and sexuality are just small pieces that can cloud judgement if not considered alongside various other factors, but need to be looked at so as not to miss their importance in combination with other aspects of human interaction.

It just may be that women that excel at being women suit positions that differ from men that excel at being men … the question is then more about what exactly we could possibly mean by saying ‘excel’ here and this inevitably cannot be disentangled from cultural factors above mere physiological processes.

There is then the issue of fertility and age. Women and men are in better positions to contribute to a given society in different episodes of their lives. I think people do not tend to view the elderly in as good a light as they used to (in Western Culture especially).

To keep on track with the topic how do roles differ between older men and women? Is there less difference?

Basically, I presume matriarchy is both necessary and natural to the maintenance of a matrilineal society to at least an extent that makes it a noteworthy difference from Western culture which is patrilineal and patriarchal. — unenlightened

The history of Iceland brings this into question. To this day girls inherit their mother’s name and boys inherit their father’s name. Women also used to fight, control ships and lead others. I guess such women would be viewed as ‘patriarchal’ though because they were ‘acting as men’ or some such nonsense?

The notion of ‘power’ in matriarchal society would be more associated with qualitative potential or creative capacity than any quantifiable consolidations of potential or possession of value. The notion of ‘societal control’ would be replaced by that of collaboration, rendering ‘loyalty’ less of an issue overall. — Possibility

Why? You have not presented any kind of argument here.

It would depend on the level of justification. I may sympathise with their position if their argument is articulate enough and may even be slightly swayed?

I don’t believe any of my positions (points of view, opinions and/or beliefs) should be viewed as unmovable objects.

I stated I am personally against conscription in general. The caveat being I assume there is some possible scenario that would make conscription more appealing as an idea.

Fans of Carol Adams I assume?

@Amity @Tobias

Iceland

[replyWow! Okay[r I hope for your sake that is satire.

‘Everything’ … so then it not worthy of note.

How about starting a war for resources (the usual reason). They said it was the main reason, or one of them, I believe? You would have to do a better job of explaining why this is. I am not saying people are not driven to violence due to some ‘sexual malfunction’ or some such thing, just that I don’t see how it can be viewed as anything like a main reason for driving someone into war/violence.

I am open to a reasoned account of why this may be so (specifically as an item that majorly entwined with war/violence).

maybe we were talking past each other? Let me know …

My stance is pretty simple.

1) Any war can be ‘justified’ and such ‘justification’ comes from a personal/collective perspective.

2) Conscription is a Law enforced by a state. Citizens can abide by the rules of law where they were born, suffer the consequences of not adhering to the laws, or leave (be this easy or hard).

3) Forced Conscription is a Law made in wartime. If I didn’t agree with the war I would leave the country most likely rather than fight back against the state. Hard to say how I would react though in reality. Other people may or may not share my views.

4) If I was the leader of a State I would not say unilaterally that I would NOT declare Forced Conscription. It would depend wholly on circumstances as I am aware there are hard choices to make and sacrifices to be made for some perceived ‘betterment’.

5) I also believe there can be scenarios where starting a war is ‘better’ than not starting a war - but I by no means see this as anything like a common occurrence NOR can I offer a historical example of such a war.

Laws are not real. I am not ‘preaching’ anything, just stating that the Laws does not have complete control over our personal choices and views, yet I concede easily that it obviously impacts upon them. I’ve had this view since adolescence and would most certainly have gone to prison rather than fight in a war when I was a teenager (I was far more stubborn back then).

Now I’m older a have a more nuanced take and understand that there could be reasons to fight, but I’m still at heart an anarchist of sorts when it comes to taking orders without question from so-called figures of authority.

If I was in my country of birth and they declared that I had to fight in a war I believe was utterly wrong I would do my upmost to flee asap. If stopped then I’m not convinced I would be staunch enough to refuse if threatened with imprisonment, torture or execution. I like to believe imprisonment maybe, torture too (depending on extent), but the execution would likely sway my hand :)

My argument is NOT that people should be forced to fight? I have no idea where you got that from. My point was that I am not saying it is inconceivable that there would be a circumstance to literally knowing send people to their slaughter. There is certainly a great, great danger within such thoughts and views BUT they are being displayed here in light of understanding there can be extreme circumstances that break the general rule.

As a general ‘rule’/‘law’ I am not for Forced Conscription at all (that should be obvious). Just because I admit there could be a situation that may contradict this does not make my position contradictory. ‘Justification’ is an extremely grey term.

Agreed. We don’t really have a choice though. We have to choose! :D

If you’re going to be silly I can stop talking? You get my point I’m sure. The idea that we are ‘forced’ is a convenient ‘excuse’ to just follow rules you don’t believe in.

Don’t get me wrong. I ‘fall in line’ everyday in one way or another and fool myself enough into thinking I ‘pick my fights’ well and with nobility. I know I’m mostly a coward though at the end of the day and maybe that knowledge will be enough one day to prevent a poor decision.

If my country was going to declare war, and I was against it wholeheartedly, then I would leave asap rather than allow the government to lock me up for refusing to fight … or so I would like to believe! Maybe in reality I would simply fall in line and pretend that I could ‘help from within’ or some such nonsense to placate my sense of self respect? Who knows.

There is a choice. Stating you were ‘forced’ to do something really just means that you refused to accept the consequences of refusing to do what you were told was right.

In one sense I was ‘forced’ to go to school, but in another sense I chose to go to school rather than suffer the consequences of playing truant in my childhood years.

Generally speaking ‘adults’ are in a slightly better position to ‘choose’ between action and inaction having developed beyond adolescence. That is not to say I think it is ‘fair’ to judge someone as ‘mature’ enough to make such decisions based merely on the number of days spent on Earth.

Does just war exist？ — Howard

That question doesn’t really make much sense to me.

There are ‘reasons’ to start a war. Any reason can seem ‘justified’ in the eye of the beholder, and I don’t find it inconceivable that a scenario could not be imagined in which a declaration of war was what I would call ‘appropriate’ - maybe a ‘global threat’ instigated by another body of people that would indirectly cause death/genocide.

In reality the chances of such hypothetical scenarios coming into play is likely really small. This is why people talk of ‘justification’ for any action. There is a need to weigh and balance the good against better and the bad against worse rather than to just assume everything as merely good versus bad (which in my personal experience does not exist other than in abstraction/delusion).

It is not literally ‘forced’. They can choose to face the consequences of refusing to play by rules they don’t agree with. Suffering is unavoidable when matters get serious.

Why do you want to contrive a scenario that might justify torturing a baby, or any one? — unenlightened

Because they are sensible and care I expect. Those not willing to do so are usually the ones more likely to actually carry out such acts because in their minds they would never do such a thing!

Torture is never justified, under any circumstance. — Tzeentch

You lack imagination :D

No. Life is not ‘fair’ though. If I did not believe in a war then I like to believe I would accept prison instead.

I believe people should fight for what they believe in. They might be right, they might be wrong. The important thing is to try your damn hardest to act as you believe is ‘best’.

I believe ‘steeling’ is wrong, yet if I ‘stole’ something to help save many innocent lives I would like to think I would do it regardless of the consequences. Doing the ‘right’ thing can be sometimes be easy and sometimes be very, very hard. The true test of character comes in the later.

I firmly believe that sexual frustration is at the root of all wars started by men. — Amity

Based on what exactly? That sounds utterly ridiculous and I don’t really understand the obsession with the idea that sexual relations are somehow inextricably entwined with violence/war.

Hatred leads to violence quite often compared to anything else. Sexual relations are merely more add-ons than affecters surely?

War is more than likely started because people (men and women) often want a cause to throw themselves into. In life situations where people feel belittled and useless they crave more and more a cause to side with. War offers people an often overly simplistic way of siding with some perceived ‘good’ against an enemy.

If we look at the example of the conflict in the Ukraine we see a great many people wanting to help, and even fight and risk their lives to help. War is often brought about by a sense of higher nobility that supplants personal safety (a greater good). Sadly there don’t seem to be any black and white situations in such conflicts and inevitably the ‘noble’ cause can turn out to be tyrannical as a repercussion of investing in somethings wholeheartedly to the point where any actual ‘wrongs’ are viewed as ‘good’ again some enemy rather than measured against personal principles over the principles of the ‘cause’ being fought for (by whatever means).

@Possibility Not interested in your drivel. Bye

Actually, it was a specific reference to specifically described delusion that results in misogyny and violence, so I stand by my terminology. — Possibility

I won’t waste any more of my time trying to discuss this then. Your reply shows such a oddly skewed idea of how men and women interact that I cannot take anything you say seriously. You literally just repeated this idea of men rationally justifying something and stating that women don’t want to win an argument? This is a generalisation, and I would add I very, very poor and inaccurate one.

Bill Burr is a comedian. He was making a joke and ‘specifically’ states he is not justifying violence against women. It is utterly stupid to suggest that if you actually watched the entire artistic piece (which is brilliant!).

What do you care soooo much about my reasons? — Olivier5

On a philosophy forum? Caring about someone’s reasoning? How strange! :D

I was very careful not to make any generalisations about either men or women. I specifically referred to ‘a man’ or ‘a woman’, unless describing the delusion itself. Yes, I agree that women can be equally delusional, and that this has nothing to do with any apparent differences between men and women. — Possibility

Saying ‘a man’ or ‘a woman’ is a general comment directed at men and women. So it was a specific reference to a general category.

Saying ‘some,’ ‘a minority’ or ‘for example’ as an instance to explain a point would have worked better.

Anyway, my original point was referring to Bill Burr’s joke in which he outlined several different situations where those women acted in a manner that deserves contempt and/or hatred. There are valid reason to have a strong dislike towards someone and Burr was not saying you SHOULD hit women at all, the joke was that to say there is no reason to is wrong - obviously if you haven’t seen the piece then this may sound insane (comedy is not exactly meant to be quoted I just assumed most people had seen it).

one of us is stupid. Others can be the judge. Bye

Women are equally as delusional too when it comes to projecting their desires on others. Anyone who has been in a relationship knows this is not really about men or women it is about some people having certain expectations and then being met with reality.

I remember someone talking a while back (maybe a good few years ago now?) about romanticism being a blight on modern sensibilities. Romance in the terms of ‘knight in shining armour’ and the ‘happily ever after’ mindset. I didn’t agree with it over all but there were some good points to consider that may have had an adverse effect on western society at large.

I my personal experience of outside of western spheres of influence there is a much more pragmatic attitude towards marriage and relationships. In one way (I admit) it seems more archaic to me, but in others I can see that there are bonuses.

Refer to Bill Burr on reasons to hit a woman (comedy but it does highlight a problem). Is it naive to assume it is all about sexual domination as women can, and do, objectify men just as much as men objectify women - physically, dues to social status and intellect too.

I certainly don't want to shut down the discussion, but point out merely that it is not limited to governments and nation states. — unenlightened

I know. I framed the colloquial meaning as being more about state/nationhood. If you don’t agree that’s fine.

@ssu @unenlightened

I guess if you don’t agree that ‘propaganda’ is viewed by many as something mostly about patriotic ideals and nationhood there is not much of a discussion to be had here.

Maybe most people are more clued in to political wrangles (beyond state ideologies) than I give them credit for.

A lot of it is context dependent. ‘Conscious’ can simply mean brain activity and when it comes to talking about conscious states there is a blurry line of vegetative states that are sometimes called ‘conscious’ and sometimes called ‘non-conscious’.

Often when someone says ‘conscious’ they are referring to states of conscious awareness, but if you are in a deep dream state you possess ‘consciousness’ still. And contradictorily being asleep/knocked-out is not often referred to as a ‘conscious state’.

This is not exactly very surprising as the neurosciences are hard sciences, and ‘consciousness’ is a phenomenon that is tricky to articulate in terms of brain function and human life. It is further confused by psychological terminology wedding up with hard sciences in this area.

When can we be said to know something, and how should we reliably construct and justify beliefs? — Cidat

The ‘answer’ is in the ‘question’. Why do you seek such ‘knowledge’.

In more explicit terms ‘knowledge’ is defined by the limitations it is bound by. If we can question something in some way then it is ‘knowledge’/‘known’. That which we do not and cannot ever question is not ‘known’/‘knowledge’.

Anyone whose goal in life is exclusively material, economic or social, does not serve you, and you should summarily distance yourself from these people. — Rafaella Leon

That literally covers all human activity. So no one is good enough to be a friend?

Demands are now for the territory they already held before the war started and a pledge not to join NATO, clearly not the original war aims, i.e. a change in government and Russian defacto control of the country. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Putin has been saying for a long time that Ukraine cannot join/apply for NATO without serious kickback from Russia. He has been pretty consistent.

Here’s something worth a look to help understand the historical context:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he25Rl0fE1c

Articulating one’s feelings and thoughts through spoken/written language is very helpful. Anyone who has had to give a lecture or write an essay will understand how actually articulating ideas and feelings helps to refine them.

If I have a big problem I write an essay about how to solve the problem. Doing so brings to light many ideas and feelings that were hidden below the surface and either solves or eases the issue a great deal.

Thinking is very hard. Articulating the problem explicitly allows one to contend with it more readily. Pleas and prayers are the first step to facing the problem head on and bringing the power of rationality to the fore. Meaning, when we feel a situation is hopeless often we just need to break it down into smaller problems and attend to the one/s that are easiest to articulate.

For example: If you have an existential crisis and want to die, then write an essay titled “Why do I want to die?” Then you can just write freeform and get to the crux of the issue whilst offering counter arguments and balancing out reasons for and against.

I think this kind of question will become more and more of an issue as technology advances.

I mean this across multiple areas. For instance, if we could create a virtual environment that mimics murder or rape to the point that it continually creeps towards more and more realistic portrayals I think it is fair to say there should be some kind of law that laws a line.

I think any argument stands purely on something being ‘artificial’ as an excuse to do anything is extremely problematic as it effectively dismisses simulations that are potentially indistinguishable from reality … that sounds bad to me as if there is no/little perceivable differentiation between reality and simulation then they must be treated more or less in the same manner.

Note: I don’t think there is any issue with shooting games as such as it isn’t much like the real lived experience. If future gaming technology does make it the same psychological experience as a wartime experience (or close to it) then it should be banned (even for training purposes) because the harm war does is more than mere physical harm. This kind of thing was explored very nicely in Westworld series.

I think you’ve got that backwards. I think meaningless distraction is where boredom stems from. Freedom is also something to consider. All too often people believe they want more freedom when the real reason they feel bound is that they have too much choice and freedom and so get stuck in perpetual states of distraction. It is extremely common (in my life experience) for the remedy to any given situation to be the exact opposite of what you’d think it would be.

Lack of honesty with oneself creates ‘boredom’ and sometimes such states of ‘boredom’ are defence mechanisms that are there to balance our ‘mental wellbeing’.

I can say with age that boredom seems to fade? I’ve not done a survey on this but it has been my observation for those around me. There may be more of a lull in middle age perhaps but generally I believe boredom declines with greater age.

I think this is more of a modern problem (as in a problem of the last couple of thousand years ish). There is nothing to suggest that we were living ‘hand to mouth’ prior to this as there was a reasonably bountiful land around us AND far less distractions from reality (through media and such).

It could well be argued that having ‘leisure time’ is more than just a time slot for distracting oneself from existential reality as that idea is in itself possibly part of the modern mindset brought about by living in pursuit of distractions from reality.

In acts or artistic expression there is a kind of meditative state that I would call ‘distraction’ in a negative sense (like merely switching off by watching a braindead movie), yet it is more or less a way of becoming unfocused from day-to-day activities and it frees up ones mind to wander and nurture itself. Maybe creating art is just a means of recalibrating our emotional state in order to be more productive in the future. Some people just happen to be more attuned to this than others and so the ‘recalibrating’ becomes a pursuit of improving their ability to attune themselves rather than to do as a means of moving forward in a more concrete sense of production (eating, sleeping and social functioning).

Boredom for me is merely a sign that I am unconsciously avoiding a hard and difficult problem. It is likely a good idea to avoid some problems. I don’t necessarily think this problem is always ‘existential’ though.

Religion and Nationalist views share many commonalities. Neither countries nor religions exist, yet countries are more bound to the profane world than religions whilst both share many sacred elements.

Putin is a Stalinist not a Nazi. They are different but still forms of fascism.

Nazi is more or less distinguished by the idea of a superior race.

The term ‘Neo Nazi’ is often used are a pejorative term to smear fervent patriots and more right leaning policies.

As for Trump … he is out of the picture for now. Sadly those in opposition to Trump were more than a little too liberal in how they decided to label hi as a Nazi. Such labelling has reached out into the public sphere as well for the general populace and it has done little more than dilute the horror of what happened with Hitler.

Putin clearly favours the opposite extreme rather than holding a far right nazi view. It is no secret that the Russian’s HATE Nazis due to the conflict in WW2 with Germany. He is a Stalinist 1 million billion steps before he is a Nazi. The reason he is Ukrainian government is being duped by neo nazis is because most Russian people have just as much a pronounced dislike for nazism as any other country in WW2 (is not more so due to the heavy price they paid in blood).

It is a bit like calling radical Islamic fundamentalists Nazis … no. They want Jews dead and gone but that alone doesn’t qualify the, as Nazis because the reasoning behind that view is based on religion.