Women dress the way they do to fit in, and be like their role models, and consumerism and marketing manipulates that, and before then some other asshole arbitrarily did. — Wosret

Young high school girls sure. But we're not discussing them at the moment. We're discussing grown-up women, some of them who don't do it merely to fit in. Do you not think such women exist? Do you think all women are good and all men are bad?

I definitely like women more, and are more prone to falling for their shit, but history seems to be silent on them since the first immortals.

They only sell so many kinds of things, and few people make their own totally different cloths than anyone else. Categorization is built right into the system of options. Freedom within restraints.

I do admit that he's motivated by money and power - as I said a different sort of liar from Hillary. Hillary is the person whom you play a video of her saying X in front of her face, and after watching she'll tell you she hasn't said X. Trump isn't like that. He'll admit he said X, but switched his position. There's a difference. — Agustino

Yes, her denials, especially in that context, are awful and quite shocking, and cause mistrust and make her lose much credibility.

But they pale in comparison to Trump's numerous, blunt, adamant, repeated denials and affirmations of what is known to be demonstrably false. His admissions aren't necessarily any better than his denials (like when one of his false claims is put to him in question form, and he owns it, affirms it, goes on to defend it...), and he doesn't always - or even often, I think - switch his position; and, in some cases, when he has done so, it has taken him years, as with the birther thing - and he is still defensive about it! That went far beyond what is reasonable or appropriate.

I definitely like women more, and are more prone to falling for their shit, but history seems to be silent on them since the first immortals. — Wosret

So then, don't you think that women abusing men is also a serious issue, just like men abusing women is in its own right serious?

They only sell so many kinds of things, and few people make their own totally different cloths than anyone else. Categorization is built right into the system of options. Freedom within restraints. — Wosret

The fact that our society forces women to find their self-esteem in their capacity to seduce men - including through the way they dress - is one of the issues that I have been speaking about. It's a (progressive) society which finds that such is good for women - that they dominate men.

Agustino,

Well I'm thinking more of a grassroots movement than you are, perhaps. Whatever the political and economic elites have in mind need not dominate the agenda. Now this may indeed be a naive approach - without the control of media, academia, etc - but the widespread discontent I mentioned, and which manifested itself in both Bernie Sanders (on the Left) and Donald Trump (on the Right), clearly shows that the power you're assuming the traditional shot callers have is a bit exaggerated.

I feel that politicians will respond pragmatically to popular movements and that these can have very humble origins. You seem to view change as largely a top-down affair involving traditional levers of power and influence whereas I see it just as equally as bottom-up. Rest assured, 'average' Americans are not horrible people who would idly sit back and allow (the caricature of) progressives to make a mockery of their values. Another thing you may not be aware of is that ethnic minorities in this country - increasingly the base of the Democrats - often hold some pretty conservative social values. A message which eschews racism and xenophobia and instead seeks some commonalities between the races and cultures which inhabit this country would surely resonate with them.

And regarding Baden (and most other progressives here), I respect him a great deal and think he'd be rather undogmatic and open-minded IF his hypothetical intellectual adversary didn't mock or ridicule his positions, but on the contrary tried to genuinely understand where they came from. Which is not a bad place I might add, at least not from what little I know of reading his posts through the years at both forums. I think I agree with him way more often than naught. I admittedly didn't see the thread you mentioned, but I can vehemently disagreeI with someone without demonizing them. And I hope they'd extend the same courtesy to me. I don't want this to be an encomia to Baden or our resident progressives, but they're mostly a pretty solid lot as far as I can tell - FAR superior to the Donald Trumps and Sarah Palins of the world - and maybe your constant hyperbole about them and their malicious intentions stops the conversation before it's even had a legitimate chance to get started. I sincerely think there's some common ground that should at least be explored.

I basically think your style can be extremely off-putting at times, and completely unbecoming of your intelligence and the thoughtful positions you frequently contribute. It's really an odd contrast. I also think you'd gain a lot more credibility if you refrained from doing silly things like referencing 'CROOKED Hillary' just as Trump does. It makes it seem like you're a propagandist who has some ulterior motive for attacking her beyond her progressivism. What that motive is remains a bit shrouded in mystery, although the fact that you may be a Russian nationalist causes one to speculate a bit. Truth before friendship, right?

Of course I do, I don't think everyone should be good, except for women, they get to be evil because I like them more, lol.

I guess you turned your hears off.

Well see that's the thing - you never admit to your biases. You are biased to Hillary and refuse to admit any defects of her - including the big one that sits right in front of everyone else's face that she's one of the biggest liars they've ever seen. I admit to mine - I even called Trump a baboon or a dangerous gorilla. You never do. To you it's just about proving leftism right, regardless of whether it really is... — Agustino

You obviously haven't been following my comments closely enough. I take it you didn't see, for example, my recent exchange with Wayfarer, in which I set the record straight on the depth of Hillary Clinton's lies? I have critised both extremes. He claimed, and I quote, that "the assertion that 'Hillary is dishonest' is dishonest" and that "'Lying Hillary' is a lie". I challenged and disputed those claims, and I provided him with evidence which shows that she has not been truthful a heck of a lot. He then sensibly acknowledged the evidence and revised his position to better accord with it. You should do the same.

But they pale in comparison to Trump's numerous, blunt, adamant, repeated denials and affirmations of what is known to be demonstrably false. — Sapientia

Trump's denials are not completely false. Take the Iraq war. It's a fact that Trump has shown concern about whether Iraq should be invaded very early on, even before the actual invasion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMgQAyZC-Vg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThwaDSaoGU8

It's true he didn't take a strong stand on it either way - either fully endorsing invade or fully endorsing not invade. But that doesn't mean he was FOR the war in Iraq. But he has started to condemn it way before we actually decided to get out of Iraq. So the propaganda of the leftist media is just that propaganda. The right also engages in propaganda, such as he has always strongly condemned the war. That's also not true. That's why you must listen to both Crooked News Network and also Fox News :P .

Did I say it was? No. So don't strawman. — Agustino

Abusers vs. abusers. Nobody is not guilty.

Your words, not mine. Stop lying and twisting and turning and blaming me for your own inability to come up with a coherent argument.

Well I'm thinking more of a grassroots movement than you are, perhaps. Whatever the political and economic elites have in mind need not dominate the agenda. Now this may indeed be a naive approach - without the control of media, academia, etc - but the widespread discontent I mentioned, and which manifested itself in both Bernie Sanders (on the Left) and Donald Trump (on the Right), clearly shows that the power you're assuming the traditional shot callers have is a bit exaggerated. — Erik

Ok I understand your position.

Rest assured, 'average' Americans are not horrible people who would idly sit back and allow (the caricature of) progressives to make a mockery of their values. — Erik

I know they aren't, except that many Americans WANT that mockery to occur already.

Another thing you may not be aware of is that ethnic minorities in this country - increasingly the base of the Democrats - often hold some pretty conservative values. A message which eschews racism and xenophobia and instead seeks some commonalities between the races and cultures which inhabit this country would surely resonate with them. — Erik

Let's take for instance blacks. So you're saying that blacks are in agreement largely with socially conservative values no? So then why is their out of wedlock birth rate over 70%?

And regarding Baden (and most other progressives here), I respect him a great deal and think he'd be rather in undogmatic and open-minded IF his hypothetical intellectual adversary didn't mock or ridicule his positions, but on the contrary tried to genuinely understand where they come from. Which is not a bad place I might add from what little I know of them. Don't want this to be an encomia to Baden or our resident progressives, but they're mostly a very solid lot - FAR superior to the Donald Trumps and Sarah Palins of the world - and perhaps your constant hyperbole about them and their intentions stops the conversation before it's even had a legitimate chance to get started. — Erik

That may be true - but I ask them simple questions - like should women abuse men - and they don't answer. They say women never abuse men. How can one not be outraged when they refuse to recognize a lot of the abuse that is going on?

I basically think your style can be extremely off-putting, and I think you'd gain more credibility if you refrained from doing silly things like referencing 'CROOKED Hillary' just as Trump does. It makes it seem like you're a propagandist who has some ulterior motive for attacking her beyond her progressivism. — Erik

And I agree largely - but it's a fact that there's a point when one gets sick of dealing with progressive biases and being insulted for it repeatedly. Just look how time after time they're all shadow-boxing against some strawman of me. Look right above this post for example... takes a statement entirely out of context so that it matches with his idea of what I should be saying in his mind. Unbelievable.

although the fact that you may be a Russian nationalist causes one to speculate a bit — Erik

Right so Eastern Europe is cowering in fear because of Russia's growing influence and the West's inability to do anything about it, and I'm a Russian nationalist? >:O This is pure American (Cold War style) propaganda. It seems that the American mind still cannot let go of this Us against Russia thing. Either with us, or with Russia. The world is much richer than just that. I'm not a Russian nationalist. It's true that I admire some things about the Russians - others I don't. But why shouldn't one look at what's good in Russia? Should we close our eyes to them because they're Russian, and we Westerners hate Russians?

I suggest you look around yourself more. Preferably not through the prism of any biases, but rather to see how things really are regardless of what beliefs you already hold. — Agustino

That's probably the funniest thing I've read in a long time. :-!

Abusers vs. abusers. Nobody is not guilty. — Benkei

In what context did I say that? Let me remind you...

On the other side, women are trained precisely to SEDUCE men - their sense of self-esteem is tied to their capacity to do so - and therefore they are trained to be todays Cleopatras and turn the Trumps on the fingers of their hands. Abuser vs abuser - nobody is "not-guilty" here. — Agustino

So do you think that women trained to seduce men - like Cleopatra seduced Caesar and Mark Antony - aren't abusers? Do you think that men like Trump aren't abusers? So if you think both of these are abusers, then does it not follow that in that context, it is abuser vs abuser - and that nobody is "not guilty" there?

Really I'm getting very tired of you strawmanning me.

So if women were to seek to have power and dominate others through the way they dress... — Agustino

I find this incredibly ridiculous. I struggle to get my head around this attitude, because it is alien to me. We're talking about a style of dressing here, for crying out loud. If a short skirt and some red lipstick has that much power and domination over you, then you must be pretty weak, and have some serious issues.

And that is in no way comparable to - or excuses - being abusive, sexist, judgemental, and so on, to such women.

That you keep yelling "strawman" doesn't make it so.

And there's so much wrong with just that one paragraph it's rather sad you don't even have an inkling of what's wrong with it. The world would be a much better place for women if men like you would all die off rather sooner than later.

Women aren't trained to seduce men, their self-esteem isn't tied to their capacity to do so and even if it were so, then obviously their responsibility in this respect is zero because they're "made" that way by (progressive) society. The problem here is your assumptions and ridiculous generalisation and the equivocation of the women abused by Trump with your silly generalisations.

Some women are expected by their surroundings to act in the way that you describe and it's prevalent among conservative surroundings that objectify women. It's thanks to progressivism women moved away from living under the joke of their husbands and with it came sexual liberation - the right for women to choose how to dress when and where and with whom to have sex. Yes, that includes women's ability to instigate a relationship or make advances - horror of horrors. But there's nothing shameful about it, because it's nothing else than men (try to) do

In the end, a woman doesn't seduce me, I let her seduce me. I'm not some unwilling subject in those exchanges and I'm certainly not a victim of it or abused if it happens. It's called taking responsibility for your own actions as a man.

And that is in no way comparable to - or excuses - being abusive, sexist, judgemental, and so on, to such women. — Sapientia

Did I say it was? Both should be condemned. That's what I've said.

And there's so much wrong with just that one paragraph it's rather sad you don't even have an inkling of what's wrong with it. The world would be a much better place for women if men like you would all die off rather sooner than later. — Benkei

Just like all Trump voters are a basket of deplorables right? You progressives must all be the same - liars and coverup artists.

The problem here is your assumptions and ridiculous generalisation and the equivocation of the women abused by Trump with your silly generalisations. — Benkei

Excuse me - another strawman. I never claimed (all) the women abused by Trump were like this. So stop lying.

it's prevalent among conservative surroundings that objectify women. — Benkei

Another loaded statement.

It's thanks to progressivism women moved away from living under the joke of their husbands and with it came sexual liberation — Benkei

So women living with their husbands is bad - we need the sexual liberation of promiscuity and the abuse that comes with it right? That's your vision of the world? That's disgusting.

the right for women to choose how to dress when and where and with whom to have sex — Benkei

Ehmm did I say they shouldn't have a right to this? >:O I said even if they dress inappropriately, they shouldn't be disrespected, insulted, etc.

But there's nothing shameful about it, because it's nothing else than men (try to) do — Benkei

Yeah - so because men try to dominate women, women should try to dominate men. Bravo! You get the progressive award for honesty, thanks for admitting that. I guess you'll be happy to hear then that you'll never get rid of the Trumps. The more women abuse men, the more men there will be abusing women - and the converse also holds true by the way before you start saying some shit about me being a misogynist.

In the end, a woman doesn't seduce me, I let her seduce me. — Benkei

Oh yeah - it's not abuse if you let them right? Just like it's not abuse if they let Donald J. Trump right? You can't be serious. All that the slave has to do is agree with his chains, then his condition ceases to be slavery right? How cute...

Heh, I'm about as far from an American nationalist or advocate of American interests (being the sole consideration of foreign policy) as one could be. Beyond questioning who actually benefits from such national partisanship, I don't believe we should be in the habit of meddling in the affairs of other nations or regions at the expense of the inhabitants of these lands - mainly for economic gain - unless absolutely necessary (e.g. ISIS - but even here our meddling may have made a significant contribution to its development and support).

I would rather seek out some common goals which I feel would benefit all people on this planet. So go ahead and accuse me of wishful thinking or naivety, but please don't assume I'm taken in by my own country's blatant and self-serving propaganda. We clearly need to get our own house in order before even considering exporting our model abroad. I'd make the friendly recommendation that others do the same. My only real 'enemy' is the narrow and shortsighted mindset which underlies and reinforces both the internal decadence and the external power politics that my country manifests. Nietzsche's notion of the Cold Monster in TSZ is one that really resonates with me.

Trump's denials are not completely false. Take the Iraq war. It's a fact that Trump has shown concern about whether Iraq should be invaded very early on, even before the actual invasion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMgQAyZC-Vg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThwaDSaoGU8

It's true he didn't take a strong stand on it either way - either fully endorsing invade or fully endorsing not invade. But that doesn't mean he was FOR the war in Iraq. But he has started to condemn it way before we actually decided to get out of Iraq. So the propaganda of the leftist media is just that propaganda. The right also engages in propaganda, such as he has always strongly condemned the war. That's also not true. That's why you must listen to both Crooked News Network and also Fox News :P — Agustino

Some of Trump's denials are completely false. A relatively large number in fact, and a greater number than Clinton.

You have picked a single example. Yet, if we look at one of the fact checking sites (and there are plenty of other such sites with similar findings), PolitiFact, and go to the file on Donald Trump, we can see that out of the statements of his that they examined, 102 (34%) of them have been found to be false (as opposed to e.g. half-true), and 52 (18%) of them are categorised as pants on fire.

But yes, of course there is propaganda and false claims on both sides. That's what happens in the run up to an election.

Some of Trump's denials are completely false. A relatively large number in fact, and a greater number than Clinton. You have picked a single example. Yet, if we look at one of the fact checking sites (and there are plenty of other such sites with similar findings), PolitiFact, and go to the file on Donald Trump, we can see that out of the statements of his they examined, 102 (34%) of his them are categorised as false, and 52 (18%) of them are categorised as pants on fire. — Sapientia

I'm not sure - as I said I don't trust these sites - neither what they say about Trump nor about Clinton. I prefer to look at things for myself and verify the facts myself. From doing this the impression I've got at least is that Clinton is certainly a bigger liar than Trump, but Trump is a better trickster.

I appreciate your thoughts on this. There are conservatives on the forums too that I respect despite disagreements, and I'm willing to engage constructively with them. I've said before that thoughtful progressives have more in common with thoughful conservatives than either do with thoughtless people of whatever political persuasion (and not every position I hold would be considered progressive, or at least exclusively so, anyway - it's just for me one of the less objectionable labels out there.). I find it impossible to understand Agustino's approach to this discussion though. It seems utterly self-defeating.

I would rather seek out some common goals which I feel would benefit all people on this planet. So go ahead and accuse me of wishful thinking or naivety, but please don't assume I'm taken in by my own country's blatant and self-serving propaganda. We clearly need to get our own house in order before even considering exporting our model abroad. I'd make the friendly recommendation that others do the same. My only real 'enemy' is the narrow and shortsighted mindset which underlies and reinforces both the internal decadence and the external power politics that my country manifests. Nietzsche's notion of the Cold Monster in TSZ is one that really resonates with me. — Erik

I naturally agree, although I think the real-politik will always prevail, and nations will always seek their own interest above mutual interests. I think conflicts between nations are unavoidable. I expect the US to do everything it can to screw Russia over for example. I expect the Russians to do everything they can to screw the US over. But I would like if their people realised this, and understood that it's just a political game that is being played out and nothing more.

There are conservatives on the forums — Baden

Such as?

I find it impossible to understand Agustino's approach to this discussion though. It seems utterly self-defeating. — Baden

I'm trying to make a point, not win a debate and public approval. We're not doing politics here, we're doing philosophy. The whole idea is to have ideas fight - not to get stuck up at the personal levels, as many of my opponents in this thread have.

I will make the concession that Trump has
been treated unfairly by the media vis-a-vis Hillary. Not suggesting he should be treated better, but rather that she should also be sharply condemned for her dishonesty and her cynical manipulation of the electorate. I don't think he's entirely delusional about that; she definitley gets preferential treatment and free passes on many things that he and other Republicans would be vilified for. So yes, there's corruption and those who enable it on both sides.

I will make the concession that Trump has
been treated unfairly by the media vis-a-vis Hillary. — Erik

Good let's now see if any of the progressives will ever agree to this. I doubt it.

We're not doing politics here, we're doing philosophy. — Agustino

The fact that you think you are doing philosophy illustrates my point. Just to take a minor example, can you explain what is philosophical either in style or substance about your continued references to "CROOKED HILLARY"?

The fact that you think you are doing philosophy illustrates my point. Just to take a minor example, can you explain what is philosophical either in style or substance about your continued references to "CROOKED HILLARY"? — Baden

>:O I'm just having a good laugh. I think Trump actually gave her a good name. She is Crooked. My question is why do you get stuck on the fact that I call her Crooked instead of dealing with the content of my ideas?

I'm not sure - as I said I don't trust these sites - neither what they say about Trump nor about Clinton. I prefer to look at things for myself and verify the facts myself. — Agustino

Oh jeez. So, you're part of this populist right-wing trend epitomised by Michael Gove's declaration that we've had enough of experts? Well, this is something beyond the scope of your personal preference.

From doing this, the impression I've got at least is that Clinton is certainly a bigger liar than Trump, but Trump is a better trickster. — Agustino

And that means absolutely nothing in the broader scheme of things. Why should anyone care about your impression when there is stronger evidence which refutes it?

The latest revelations about Hillary training homeless, mentally ill, and assorted thugs, to start riots at Trump rallies (they claim Chicago as a major success), renders "Crooked Hillary" quite appropriate.

By the way, have you read about this in the media?

Oh jeez. So, you're part of this populist right-wing trend epitomised by Michael Gove's declaration that we've had enough of experts? Well, this is something beyond the scope of your personal preference. — Sapientia

No I'm in the right-wing which says that men should inform themselves and be on top of the facts themselves. I'm part of the right-wing which distrusts authority and bowing down your head to them. I'm part of the right-wing which says that your own head is good enough to think through these issues and you don't need some higher up to tell you what to do.

And that means absolutely nothing in the broader scheme of things. Why should anyone care about your impression when there is stronger evidence which refutes it? — Sapientia

Then don't care about it. You have to make your own decision - I just told you what I think based on my knowledge.

I'm not surprised, as even Obama said, Hillary will say and do anything to get elected. That's why she's so despicable. She'd lick boots if she has to. I hate such lowly people. At least Trump has some self-esteem in him and won't just go about doing whatever it takes to win - he'll even throw away victory if that's what it takes for him to preserve his character and the way he is (even if this character isn't very good).

I will make the concession that Trump has been treated unfairly by the media vis-a-vis Hillary. Not suggesting he should be treated better, but rather that she should also be sharply condemned for her dishonesty and her cynical manipulation of the electorate. I don't think he's entirely delusional about that; she definitley gets preferential treatment and free passes on many things that he and other Republicans would be vilified for. So yes, there's corruption and those who enable it on both sides. — Erik

Yeah, we have had it over here with our mainstream media and their treatment of Jeremy Corbyn. But I'm much less sympathetic when the victim is Trump.

Good let's now see if any of the progressives will ever agree to this. I doubt it. — Agustino

Ah, proved you wrong again. :P