You would spread the myth that, somehow, being on TV means a woman wants to be harassed or assaulted. You would approve the falsehood that a women on TV who is attracted to a foamier, rich man desires to be harassed and/or assaulted. You would claim opposition to the harassment and assault of women who appear on TV, is somehow inconsistent with those women appearing on TV, as the women on TV "really wanted it." — TheWillowOfDarkness

You made a disparaging remark about the women on TV on the basis that they're women. That's sexism. — Michael

The world pretends to hate men like Trump but actually loves them. The women on TV pretend they are disgusted by what Trump does to them. But secretly, they all desire it, and wish they were the ones. In the polls they pretend not to vote for Trump - but when they're alone, with themselves inside the booth, they cast their vote where their hearts are. It is good - they imagine - to pretend to morality but act immorally. We all knew, when we were speaking of morals, that it was merely speaking after all. When we hurt the other - we will retort by "I thought you'd be doing the same" - for we know that what we say is mere politics and nothing more. Indeed, we are surprised by those who expect us to keep our word - that person is really an Idiot for us. Suddenly the mask will go off, and our real face will show. — Agustino

What is the Point with this thread? — Beebert

Okay, so let's discuss this from the ground up then. Why do you think that specific part was sexist? — Agustino

Is it because the word "all" was used with regards to the women on TV? — Agustino

No, a majority didn't vote for Trump. There are 7 billion people in the world, 323 million people in the United States, 231 million eligible voters in the United States, and 129 million actual votes were cast. Trump's 63 million isn't a majority by any measure. And I don't know if 46% of the actual votes cast counts as close to a majority. — Michael

Then who were you referring to when you said "[the world] actually voted for him"? And who were you referring to when you said "the world pretends to hate Trump"? Is this some false equivalency where you're using the term "world" to refer to two different groups of people? — Michael

But it is as likely that the moderators will have fairly fuzzy ideas of how sexists, homophobes, and racists write, and will get it wrong -- at least sometimes. (That's not a deficiency on the part of moderators. It's just life.) — Bitter Crank

Just as if I were to say "London is the capital of England and women are inferior to men" then my statement would be sexist, even though my claim that London is the capital of England isn't. — Michael

Oh, so they're pseudo-scientific the way yours is. lol. Man! — Πετροκότσυφας

The world didn't vote for Trump. 62,979,879 people voted for Trump. And I'm sure a good number of those voted for Trump only because he was a Republican or only because he wasn't Hillary. There is a good amount of genuine hate for Trump. — Michael

The whole premise of the statement and the value by which the polemic functions is sexist. It's outright rape apology, drawn out of the notion a women is their for whatever the rich man wants to do. Any question of what a women thinks or is interested is rejected in favour of assuming a (the problem is merely defined by you saying "all," but any) woman wants some sort of sexual attention just because a man is rich/famous and he wants to harass them. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Even a woman who was attracted to a famous rich man would fall under these concerns. Attraction is not the same as a desire to engage in sexual activity, let alone sexual activity in a public space (or close to a public space) with a famous rich man who you're never going to see again. — TheWillowOfDarkness

We are not allowed to say something is morally more wrong than nazis because then nazism is more acceptable than that? — BlueBanana

just not posting ever to err on the side of caution. — StreetlightX

I don't know if they cite medical research. An you don't know either, as it seems. — Πετροκότσυφας

And, if your point was that SX and his citations make the issue seem a lot less controversial than it is, you failed miserably in expressing that, since all you did was to call the citations pseudo-scientific — Πετροκότσυφας

but I guess they have value, eh? — Πετροκότσυφας

Hi, I have a quick question about the forum guidelines: what exactly counts as a nazi sympathiser?

1) Being a nazi
2) Promoting being a nazi
3) Not having any strong opinions on nazism, including not having anything against it
4) Being against nazism but thinking they have a right to their opinion
5) Being against nazism but thinking they have a right to spread their ideas
6) Being against nazism but thinking they have a right to, well, do anything, including killing people
7) Justifying nazism with cultural relativism

The first two and last two probably count, but especially #2 and #3 are unclear. What about the last one as a provocative thought experiment? #justcurious
-BlueBanana — BlueBanana

Parts of it were sexist. — Michael

It's not that hard to realise that saying "they're not doctors" is not a refutation of SX's citations, is it? Especially, if you are someone who favours independent thinking over the title of "doctor". There's no reason to suppose SX's authors didn't get it better than "doctors" or than you. — Πετροκότσυφας

On the myth that testosterone largely accounts for differences in behaviour — StreetlightX

it is also fair to allow posts that perpetuate those myths to stand, if only so that others can expose them for the myths that they are — StreetlightX

Yes, because you left out the polemic, sexist piece of writing with your selective quoting.

You can't honestly be this dense. — StreetlightX

I called the polemic, sexist piece of writing a polemic, sexist piece of writing. — StreetlightX

Nobody said those passages are sexist. — StreetlightX

I already have. Go back and read. — John Harris

Yes, it's sexist and arguably misogynist. — John Harris

Nobody said those passages are sexist. — StreetlightX

A polemic, sexist piece of writing. — StreetlightX

Can you understand that you can't appeal to doctors when you say that generally you distrust doctors and favour independent reasoning? It's not that hard, is it? — Πετροκότσυφας

And the world pretends to love men like Marcus Aurelius, but actually hates them to the core, for true morality disrupts hypocrisy and pulls the cover. And men are too afraid to look at their own faces, and will do anything to keep the veil covering it. They will then start speaking of the complete acceptance of life as it is - as if there was anything more in there than a covert pleading to accept immorality, to drop the pretence. For their heart truly lusts for what is unclean, and their mind only pretends that it is otherwise. They envy Trump, instead of pity him. Indeed, they condemn pity, as the emotion belonging to the weak. But it is only the strong man who can look down on another with compassion and pity, for only the strong man knows what the other lacks. The weak can only look up at what they deem to be the strong with envy. And the one they deem to be the strong shows what their real values are.

When theft, adultery, promiscuity, deception, and the like become the standard - then the immoral shall look up to people exemplifying these "qualities". Even as they condemn them - they shall condemn - but it will be only in speaking, for in reality they will secretly envy those people. For their hearts have not yet renounced evil - nor have their minds seen evil as evil - rather they persist in secretly seeing evil as good. — Agustino

If someone asks us why shall a good man support Trump - then we shall answer that Trump is the truth of man, and we want our brother to have an honest look at himself. How can we change the world if we refuse to look at our own face, maybe for the first time? Those cowards, some of whom make their presence felt in this thread by protesting against Trump, are pony-hugging liberals in disguise. They hate Trump because they hate themselves - they will refuse to see their own wretchedness reflected in Trump - so they have to get rid of Trump, only to suppress their own selves.

How utterly hilarious to see them crying about Trump slighting the Truth, when their favorite TV shows slight the Truth each and every day, and behold, they keep on watching? Have they just now awakened and opened their eyes onto the world? Have they been fast asleep, so drawn into their petty play not to know the world they're living in? One has to wonder how deep blindness and stupidity can go.

They would all like to be the overmen on Wall Street, only that they lack the strength - they lack the opportunity. If only power were placed in their hands. But being weak, they hide their desire from themselves - so that they may be able to live with themselves. Instead they promote a fake morality - a hypocritical morality - motivated by their ressentiment and hatred of themselves and of the powerful (whom they nevertheless want to emulate). So on the one hand they condemn theft - but on the other they reward the thief by doing business with him. On the one hand they condemn adultery - on the other they enjoy seeing it in their movies. With one hand they take away, and with the other, behind their backs so that their eyes do not see, they give back what was taken!

That is their pity, for they have never actually rejected immorality. They have just deceived themselves, thinking that they have rejected what is immoral. But they haven't. The sad part is that their so called morality is a reaction to immorality, and not authentic and in-itself, and has the same illusory and shadowy constitution that its parent has. That is why when push comes to shove, they shall once again resort to immorality. If their daughter can marry that unrighteous rich man, then they will immediately agree, and at once will have forgotten all their concerns about morality. — Agustino

But of course it seems you will selectively distinguish between polemic writing, depending on who the author happens to be. — Agustino

A polemic, sexist piece of writing. — StreetlightX

And as you have now just admitted that "of course not all, that would be silly", you must also admit that mcdoodle was right to call you out on your claim. — Michael

But you did say "The women on TV pretend they are disgusted by what Trump does to them. But secretly, they all desire it, and wish they were the ones." — Michael

It is polemic writing, hyperbolic at times, to emphasise a point. — Agustino

I don't think you've gained any decent grasp of medicine, fella. I think you're among the most inconsistent and intellectually dishonest persons around here. — Πετροκότσυφας

I believe his claim was just that you don't know that all the women on TV who claim to be disgusted by Trump are just pretending and secretly desire what Trump does to women. — Michael

I don't think you've gained any decent grasp of medicine, fella. I think you're among the most inconsistent and intellectually dishonest persons around here. — Πετροκότσυφας

Hmm I just saw this now, didn't move on the previous page until now. Yes, anemia can definitely cause such symptoms. If there's not enough hemoglobin cells to carry oxygen around your body, then even if your heart is pumping right, and your lungs are oxygenating right, then there will not be enough oxygen going around, and you will start feeling short of breath.

Think of it like this. Your hemoglobin cells are like railcars. Your heart is the engine of those railcars. And your lungs are the factory where the railcars get their goodies from. The railcars need to transport a certain level of goodies in order to supply for everyone who needs them (that is the rest of your body). So maybe there's not enough railcars (anemia - low hemoglobin). Maybe the right goods are replaced with poisonous goods (such as carbon monoxide poisoning). Maybe the engine of the railcars isn't working well - so they don't get around the body (that's the heart). Maybe the factory doesn't produce enough oxygen (that would be the lungs). Or maybe the control centre (the brain) fires off the wrong signal (can happen with a variety of conditions, including very often psychological ones, such as anxiety disorders). These are some of the possibilities that can account for shortness of breath. Oh - useful thing to remember is that blood oxygenation is measured as a percentage of railcars (hemoglobin) that are full, and are passing by wherever you have the pulse oxymeter placed (typically the finger). It doesn't matter what they're full with, whether it's oxygen or carbon monoxide. But that's what it would indicate. Say 97% of hemoglobin are carrying something. So you can imagine the conditions where you'd have a high level of SpO2 and yet still have a problem using the metaphor above. Anemia for example would be one of them.

I think you're among the most inconsistent and intellectually dishonest persons around here. — Πετροκότσυφας

Sorry, I forgot to mention that against any evidence or appeal, he can always appeal to independent thinking. Reason. — Πετροκότσυφας

Nah, it's pretty fucking disgusting, tempered only by the fact the whole piece of writing is so numbingly overwrought and self-unaware that the only way to read any of it is as inadvertent self-parody. — StreetlightX

(1) to think that issues of gender difference can only be legitimately discussed by medical or scientific sources exclusively is already to illegitimately pre-suppose the terms of discussion — StreetlightX

Oh, whatever happened to Agustino's skepticism of doctors and medicine. — Πετροκότσυφας

After reading through this thread I am more convinced than ever before; Feminists (not all but most) are those who most of all hold to ressentiment values these days. But what do they believe in? Religion/spirit? Most of times no. Biology? They may claim it, but in truth no. — Beebert

1. Thanks for the reminder of the context. I still think it's profoundly sexist: you claim to know what women secretly want, and you don't — mcdoodle

I think you were sexist towards Mongrel, and to and about TimeLine. — mcdoodle

Responding to a thread about a complaint with a long diatribe as you did at the beginning of this thread was rude and bullying. It's a rhetorical way of saying, If you complain about me, I'll harangue you in return. — mcdoodle

We should be welcoming to all, and focus on philosophy, not personalities. — mcdoodle

I think women (in the modern age, and in the West) are NOT submissive to men.

I think women (in the modern age, and in the West) are NOT submissive to men sexually, nor intellectually.

I think philosophers are generally dominating. Indeed, being dominating is a trait required for success in philosophy.

I think women should be more submissive (as should men by the way) than they currently are - generally speaking. I'm saying this just cause most people are bloody selfish at the moment - which is the opposite of submissive.

I don't think women should be more submissive to men sexually, but neither should they use sex as a way of dominating men, which, unfortunately, I see more and more women doing in the West.

Women should be more submissive to men intellectually than they currently are, on average, as men seem to make better decision makers. Why? Because men can be ruthless, aggressive and competitive much more frequently than women, traits which are required for making great decisions in the world. This largely has to do with biological makeup (testosterone). — Agustino

Now they have the education and opportunity. Are they as successful as men in terms of leadership capability? No. On average they'll probably never be as successful as men in terms of leadership, because again, they are just programmed differently biologically. Women don't want to dominate, to engage in conflict, etc. Why not? Because they have lower testosterone levels. Such desires are necessary for effective leadership, maybe less so in some areas of the world today, but fundamentally they are. Only 4.2% of Fortune 500 companies have a woman CEO. Really there's no competition, here, most women simply do not have the biological drive to compete with men in terms of leadership. They excel in other attributes - peace, compassion, emotional resilience etc. being some of them. — Agustino

I said on average. There can be exceptions. So yes, if I see that historically men are more effective leaders than women, generally speaking, I will conclude that they are better suited to be leaders, in the absence of any other evidence. — Agustino