I think your arrogance might just be matched by your naivete... which means it's a sure bet that Uncle Sam wants you. Have you checked into whether you can fast-track to citizenship with military service? — Mongrel

And I think your general incoherence may just be matched by your lack of judgement... which means it's a sure as hell bet that the closest psychiatric ward wants you. Have you checked into whether they have a free spot for you in there - because I tell you this last post of yours makes no sense at all.

But it's unimportant and has nothing to do with the issue in any case; but it does seem to demonstrate either your tendency to jump to conclusions about things you know nothing of; in this case about my psychology. Or else it shows your tendency to make disparaging remarks when you can't find any cogent arguments. This is shown yet again with your ridiculously childish and patronizing "baby".

Ho hum will the laughs ever cease. — John

Where's the recognition of your mistake? Seems like you're wiggling out of it again by not responding to what is actually being asked of you.

So, to return to the issue at hand and just for the record if you genuinely don't think morality is founded on religion or authority, then what is it founded upon? — John

Morality is like the roof of a house, where the walls are duty and their foundation is love. The walls without the foundation cannot stand, and the roof without either the foundation or the walls cannot stand ;)

Both these people were products of their times. In another century, Ghandi would have ended up dead in a ditch somewhere. Born a little earlier or later, maybe Hitler would have made it into art school and poured his bile out onto canvases. — Mongrel

You fail to recognise that in another century Ghandi wouldn't have attempted to achieve the same goal he had now. The capacity of the leader is precisely in choosing a goal and then getting people to follow. This greatly depends on their character - good character = good goal. Evil character = evil goal.

And yeah of course Ghandi could have ended up dead - his cause not succesful. But that's not necessarily failure as a leader - so long as he rallied up the people and got them to pursue a vision, that's success in the art of leading.

You missed the 1980's when the "networking leader" was all the rage. — Mongrel

I don't care about these a prioris that big heads think about leadership. I look in history and I see what leaders have actually done. The fact of the matter is that people who actually follow the big heads - they don't look anything like the real leaders we know from history. So there must be a problem with the big heads guiding them.

There is something cool about the USA. It doesn't usually show up in politics, in my experience. — Mongrel

What do you mean?

2. We're facing problems that have unfolded over an extended period. It's stuff we've been fighting for years. It's already come up that we failed to listen to people who demonstrated that they did know what to do (as with the derivative market crash and maybe the invasion of Iraq.) It's time for a leader who has mastery over information management and decision making.

Which sort of situation are we in? Mostly 2. We might be presently sliding toward 1, but we aren't there now. — Mongrel

Great leaders are always great leaders regardless of the situation. Mastery over information and decision making isn't what a great leader is. That's what people under him have to do. This is precisely the problem - we have forgotten what leadership means. A leader shouldn't have to care how to get from A to B. A leader isn't a technician giving you the how. The President isn't there to be an engineer to say this is HOW we'll get to B. Only that we must get to B (and what that B is - that's what a leader needs to decide on. What is the B we need to get to? And all the information in the world can't decide that. All the big heads can't decide that. The big heads are always confused. They don't know what to do). That's what he has to do. He must direct everyone towards getting to B. Motivate and convince them to get to B. What makes someone a great leader is that they carve their own path - they are not servants to an electorate that's already existing. They have a vision, and they create the electorate to implement it. A great leader can be either moral or immoral - good or evil. Gandhi is a great leader - he effectively created the electorate - he got the people to follow his vision of a free India. Hitler on the other side (on the evil side) is also a great leader. He also carved his own path and got the German people to follow.

This is precisely why I am interested in Trump. He's reminding us of what great leaders actually have to do. Put others to work to implement a certain vision. Not be some guys with big heads which they can barely hold up. That's for Professors and experts. Not for leaders. A leader's job is vision - that's why morality - if we actually get back to having real leaders as opposed to fakes - will be the determining factor - because the people will have to choose between different visions and goals. Until now all the goals were similar. Which vision is good and which is evil? All the visions for the US were similar until now. No big differences. This time it's different.

I might add that ALL great leaders are divisive. It's impossible to lead without dividing. If you lead without dividing, then you have no principles. You're a crook - like Hillary. She wants to please everyone just so she can get into that Oval Office. You have no integrity then. So a leader is always someone who brings a sword - who brings discord and who upsets the status quo. We have a very absurd idea about what a leader is. A leader isn't an asinus which says "Uhhhhh what do the people want? They want X. Okay time to figure out how to give them X!" - that's not a leader. That's an idiot (it sounds more like his people are leading him than him leading the people). A real leader says "What should the people want? X. Time to get them to want X then".

I don't think so. I think he understands it's quite possible that he'll lose the election and seeks to convince people that if he loses it can only be due to fraud. That's not showing "greatness of spirit" in my book. It's shows meanness of spirit, a spiteful spirit, intent on undermining not only the authority and legitimacy of the victor but the election process itself if he's unsuccessful. — Ciceronianus the White

As I said before yes. But he's setting himself up for the future - in that he shows greatness of spirit. First he alienates the Republican Party because he wants his voters to remain Trump supporters, not Republicans. He wants to steal that electorate from the Republican Party. Why? Because he knows that the RNC will not allow him to run as a Republican the next time. So what has he got to do? He has to say that the elections were rigged. Then, the same way he carried the birther movement, he will carry the rigged movement. This will be formed of the supporters he has - roughly 20-25% of the American electorate will remain loyal to him (he has a group of supporters which already have a lot of loyalty to him). These people will be kept as his supporters as he continues throwing stones after Hillary and talking about the corruption of the system. Then next elections come, the Republicans don't want to let him run, and he threatens he'll run as an independent. The Republican politicians are greedy - anything to ensure they don't lose - and Trump running as an independent will ensure that they will in fact lose in the general election. By now they think Trump is discredited and hasn't got much chance in their primaries anyway. They let him run for the sake of not starting a war with him, so long as they make him agree not to run as an independent if he fails in the Republican race. Then Trump wins the Republican primary. Clinton is even more discredited and tarnished than she is now - the American people will never want another Clinton. Trump becomes President. This I think is his plan.

If you aren't a US citizen, why do you give a flip? — Mongrel

Because Trump is the first politician in the Western world in the past 50 years who displays one of the fundamental virtues that we're missing - greatness of spirit, courage to go at it all alone and fight for one's vision regardless of whether the vision is good or bad. Daring. Fighting and winning against all odds. All our other leaders are cowards - they really don't do shit (or better said they do only what is popular - only what they know will certainly get them elected - they have no real passions or beliefs - their beliefs are whatever is popular and will get them in office). We've become shielded by political correctness, by bureaucrats, by experts - someone else is thinking for us. People have no more passions - they have small passions, to go on Tinder, to shag their neighbour to do some pesky little and insignificant thing. Trump is the first one in recent history with a real passion and energy to move the world, to actually do something big and move everything he has to move to achieve it. That's refreshing to see - I thought the Western world was all but dead, with no passion or courage for anything, until I saw him dare. I thought everyone left was like Crooked - doing anything to earn another dollar, with no grander ambitions than merely hold office, be among "high society", remain (or become) amongst the powerful and so forth. It's refreshing to see someone dare to be different.

Yes. What is an aspiring Stoic or Christian to do, though, in such a situation? Which megalomaniac is a more intelligent choice than the other? For my part, I can't choose Trump, who is now claiming that if he doesn't win it will be because of fraud and encouraging others to react accordingly--thereby undermining the process itself for purely selfish reasons. That seems to me to be the most irresponsible claim made by this serially irresponsible and seriously ignorant man, and for my part it in itself renders him the more objectionable, the greater evil. — Ciceronianus the White

I respect and honour that choice - not voting for Trump. Trump certainly has a lot of negative aspects.

However, voting for Clinton is a no-no from the start. She's a lying snake, who would do anything to get what she wants. Anything. She will be anyone, she will say anything, she will do anything. Trump at least has an ounce of self-respect - he will only accept becoming president as Trump - not as anyone else - hence why he's very willing to do quite a few actions which harm his chance of being elected. I'd rather vote for such a person even if they are evil, then vote for a snivelling and spineless hysteric who is a lesser evil. That's if one is to vote at all. One must have some decency and self-respect - Trump is evil, but Hillary is scum. I don't want to give a license to scum in order to avoid some evil.

But I do highly respect folks who would choose to abstain from the voting.

who is now claiming that if he doesn't win it will be because of fraud and encouraging others to react accordingly — Ciceronianus the White

But he is showing greatness of spirit in so doing. He's acting like Caesar in crossing the Rubicon (of course he lacks Caesar's intelligence, physical and political capabilities) - he's ignoring the consequences and going with his vision all the way. That's something of value - even if his vision is crooked, selfish, and so forth. And I might add that we're missing that in the last 60-70 years - greatness of spirit.

>:O

Nor can I understand comparing a toad like Trump to Alexander the Great, Marcus Aurelius, Martin Luther King Jr. nor Gandhi... I guess that makes us even? — Phil

I want to see you achieve half of what Trump has achieved, and then come speak to me about that comparison ;) .

Hmmm... favorite philosopher Nietzsche first choice. Not an entirely bad one, Nietzsche has a lot to offer, especially about magnanimity of spirit (although I find Kierkegaard better ;) ). Second choice ... Foucault - now that one, I can't understand :P

By the way, exactly what I've been saying:

Many women come to him and do inappropriate stuff - this is expected because they are scum, who like Crooked, would do anything in order to get what they want. There's a lot of scum in this world - and some of that scum is women too, not only men. Now before some silly progressive misinterprets this for the 9th time - this doesn't mean that Trump has never abused women himself. He probably has. But this isn't to turn a blind eye to what women also do.

Hah! Wonderful woman Melania to discipline those little twats who try to seduce her husband. That's what a strong woman does.

But again your post proves me right — Baden

I agree with your point regarding Trump using the media. Obviously. You fail to see a pscyhological point about Trump as well, which I will address soon - why Trump must operate this way. It's not because he's Crooked like Hillary and will do anything to get elected - his motivation is different. I disagree that one should expect the media to be biased just because someone criticises them - that's not what one should expect because the media shouldn't be biased in the first place.

and am thoroughly enjoying the beating his psyche must be taking through these non-stop attempts to assassinate his character. — Erik

I think you misunderstand the psychology of great men - not saying Trump is a great man in the sense of being a moral man, please note that. But he is a great man in a different sense. He's great in the same way Alexander was great. He displays one quality that probably all other current politicians in the West lack - magnanimity of spirit. He doesn't care what lowly good-for-nothings think about him - he can care less. A man like him is a lone wolf. He doesn't need anyone's approval - nor does he want it. What he wants is that his greatness compels the approval of others. Not that they freely give it - but rather the same way when one stares at a beautiful painting and is forced to say "this is beautiful" so too when one looks at him, one is forced to say "Trump is great". That's what he wants - that's what he's always wanted. Such men treat their lives as pieces of art. Even if he loses the election - it doesn't matter to him - that's not proof that he's not great, like other common men would think. A great man will try again and again and will never stop trying to show his greatness - his capacity to undertake difficult actions and pull through with them. Because the source of his greatness isn't how the external world looks - it's not that he's in the ditch - the source of his greatness is that unshakable belief that he has inside of him that he is great and he can do great things, and the more failures and obstacles there are in his path the better it is because the greater he will be once he overcomes them. The more people oppose him, the more they hate him, the greater he will be once he overcomes them.

Right now he's very smart. The election is rigged he says. He has probably about 40% of the American electorate, with about 20-25% being TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP fans who would always vote for him. His people are very loyal - because they admire his greatness, which compels them to do so. He's distancing from the Republican Party because he knows the DNC will try to not let him run again in the future. He wants his electorate to remain with him - so that he will continue with the rigging of the election afterwards the same way he continued with the birther issue. He will keep his voters happy by throwing stones and bombarding Crooked after she wins. Then next election comes and the Republicans say "Not again Mr. Trump - u ain't running for us!" and he says "Fair game, then I will run as an independent and take 30% of your electorate so that you lose the election - you want that to happen? No. Then you let me run in your ballot, and if I lose I certify that I won't run as an independent". Boom. He's up there once again - he's preparing the way.

Trump will throw an election - as he has in fact done many times - in order to keep his greatness. He will not be a lowly good for nothing just to get elected. He will fuck over Paul Ryan even if this means he'll lose the election. Why? Because the more obstacles there are against him, the better. He doesn't want to win more than he wants to be great. Crooked wants to win - she doesn't care about being great, she has no character. She identifies being great with winning.

That's why I could never vote for Hillary, but I could vote for Trump. He at least has something I admire - despite the many things I hate. Hillary is just a good for nothing - a spineless liar who has no principles and no beliefs, and will do anything to get what she wants. A chameleon. That's not only evil - it is also shameful. At least Trump is great in his actions - regardless of whether they're moral or not. That is a great quality. He pushes through with them even if he knows they'll hurt him.

Same with someone like Casanova. They may be evil. But they show a virtue that has nothing to do with either good or evil: magnanimity. We can admire them even while criticising them, and disagreeing with them. They overcome insurmountable obstacles. As can someone who is good but is great - say Marcus Aurelius, or Socrates. Many men we can admire for their virtue, but not for their greatness. We can't admire anyone for their sin though unless they also have greatness. Obviously the most complete men are people like Marcus Aurelius and Socrates (who have both magnanimity and virtue) - but men like Alexander the Great, Trump, Casanova, rise up above the crowds through their one virtue: magnanimity.

The progressives destroy magnanimity - for both good and evil. The sins that they promote with regards to sexual immorality are petty and disgusting. Such sins only small men and women commit or are interested by - men and women with small souls. The sort of benevolence they promote is also petty and disgusting. Say this. Vote that. Protest. Go naked on the street. Nothing more. They don't promote the real fight against injustice, the way people like Martin Luther King Jr. or Mahatma Ghandi did. Can you imagine, Martin Luther saying "I have a dream" - what awesomeness, what power, goodness and conviction emanated from the man to move his brothers and sisters to rise up against vice - to awaken the fires of their passions. These latter people are great souls. But the progressive spirit is destructive of greatness, whether this is in people like Alexander or in people like Ghandi. What we see instead is the emphasis on "facts", on "experts", on all sorts of nonsense. Not the emphasis on greatness of soul.

I'm all for greater control and oversight but you won't find many conservatives supporting that call. — Baden

Maybe because you would use it to shut down conservative outposts?

There is nothing condemnable about dressing that way. — Sapientia

No but there is certainly something condemnable about dressing that way in order to have power and dominate over men. There's a difference there.

Ah, proved you wrong again. :P — Sapientia

Just like Clinton would do anything to get elected, it seems you'd do anything to prove me wrong >:O - see, maybe I wasn't far off when I said progressives are all the same ;)

You're doing a lot of things, but philosophy isn't one of them. — Baden

No amongst having a good laugh I'm actually also doing philosophy. Just that you get stuck up on "Crooked" and not on anything else.

But really it's not the media that condemns Trump but his own words and actions. — Baden

Again giving excuses for them. The media should be unbiased. The real truth is that they do have a bias to progressivism. And Trump unmasks this. Exactly as I've been saying all along. People think the media is free when it's really not - it's in the binds of progressives. But because of Trump we can all see that - the mask goes off.

bias bias bias ;)

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).

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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?

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 .

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.

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?

Even if it were true (and it isn't) that women purposefully dress to subjugate the desires of men, they still haven't acted shamefully - that doesn't necessarily follow and is only your narrow moral framework that adds that value judgment (as so many conservatives). — Benkei

Ok so let's look deeper. So you're telling me that it's not shameful to seek to have power and dominate others right? So if women were to seek to have power and dominate others through the way they dress - then that wouldn't make them shameful - right? Ok if that is so, then why would it be shameful when a man seeks to have power over women and calls them sluts when they dress inappropriately? I think both are shameful, but it surprises me how you only think one of them to be shameful.

or sharing responsibility for a resulting rape. — Benkei

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

Even if it were true (and it isn't) — Benkei

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.

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...

Because it's negated by the sentence following it — Benkei

Okay so let's have a look and see if this really is the case - if the two sentences are contradictory.

So while men shouldn't abuse her, catcall her, or anything of that sort even in that case - it doesn't also follow that she should purposefully get dressed in such a way as to excite strong (and potentially) uncontrollable passions in men. That's just not decent - it's simply a power game. — Agustino

So clearly you must not be referring to the part in italics, but rather to the part in bold as the source of the negation. So let's see:

Men shouldn't abuse, catcall, or any such action even if women dress inappropriately VS women shouldn't dress inappropriately in order to excite strong and potentially uncontrollable passions in men. How do they negate each other? Those sentences are perfectly compatible. So do you think women should purposefully dress in order to provoke men and arouse their desires? Do you think this is moral - just talking about the women now not about men.

claiming they acted "shamefully" — Benkei

So if a women purposefully dresses in such a way in order to subjugate the desires of other men to her persona she's not acting shamefully according to you?

or questioning their credibility — Benkei

So women = good, and men = bad - all the time in rape/assault accusations, right? Why shouldn't we question their credibility with the same scrutiny that we question the credibility of men - it should be the same for both. What about innocent until proven guilty? That only applies when the women are the potential criminals no? When it's men - guilty until proven innocent right? It must be impossible that you're not capable of seeing such prejudices in your thinking. It really has to be.

He'll admit it when forced to (when indisputable evidence is involved), but he'll justify and explain away his actions. He specifically tends to justify his abhorrent behavior by pointing to other people who've done similar things. Honestly my 17-year-old stopped doing that a couple years ago, and takes much more accountability for his actions than a presidential candidate. What kind of message does this send to our society, specifically our kids, Agustino? — Erik

So what kind of message does Hillary give to our kids when you show her indisputable evidence of having done X and she just laughs and says she's never done X? Clearly a worse message no?

I think I'm tending towards the position that it'll be easier to reform progressivism with some 'culturally conservative' principles than to reform the Republican Party with progressive economic (and certain cultural!) principles. — Erik

Oh how mistaken I think you are. Do you think those folks who have just grabbed the reigns of power, and now are looking to dominate using them will yield up their power willingly because of the "morality" of any agenda? The progressives are running a war - you think they really want their moral agenda? Of course not - they're running the most blatant power game in modern history - they're the new slave owners - on a multitude of issues. On the one we were talking about regarding men and women - they are the new slave owners who want women to have complete power over men, while men cannot do anything about what women do - where men have no form of protection. You think they'll let you change that? You think they'll give that up for "equality"? That's like asking the slave owner benefiting from his slaves to free them up!

Have you seen what Baden said regarding Tinder and the sexual market for working class white males? He said that poor working class white males get the short end of the stick, because sex is so easily available and women get to choose completely, and men have very little choice, and due to their poverty and lack of social status, these men get the short end of the stick. But he wasn't worried about it in the least - this according to him is progress - it's good that this is happening, that's what the working class white male deserves - in other words to become a slave. You must be able to see through all their empty talk to their intentions.

I stick to the important partes; respect for women is a good start. — Benkei

And how then do you fail to realise that I agree and you're only shadow boxing a strawman? For example:

A woman purposefully going dressed like a whore to attract the attention of men - that's not her just being who she wants, she knows clearly what effect that will have - it's just a biological reaction. So while men shouldn't abuse her, catcall her, or anything of that sort even in that case - it doesn't also follow that she should purposefully get dressed in such a way as to excite strong (and potentially) uncontrollable passions in men. — Agustino

How is the bolded part not evidence of this for example?

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.

No, that is not true. Quite the contrary, as demonstrated by comparitive fact checking assessments. Where are you getting that from? Is it just your uninformed opinion or have you cherry picked? Trump is a far bigger liar. — Sapientia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKFC9r2xzYk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoJMT90N9nY
CROOKED HILLARY - and everyone knows it. Show me the time when a crowd will laugh when they hear "Donald Trump is honest" - you won't be able to.

Now Willow, the real truth is that YOU and people like you are the professors of Donald Trump. Donald Trump is a reaction against folks like you. You tell him "No sit down in your bench - you have no right to do anything but allow women to have full power over you and dominate you however they like" - and he says "No, I'll take charge of my own destiny and I'll dominate those bitches myself - I'll make them into my slaves instead of the other way around". You are teaching him - by oppressing him, and failing to provide him with a legal and moral means of defending himself.

This is nothing but giving a free pass for predatory sexual behaviour. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I take it then that you don't know what you're quoting, or you're not reading it carefully enough. So let's go back:

So while men shouldn't abuse her, catcall her, or anything of that sort even in that case — Agustino

What does this mean now? Does this mean giving a free pass to predatory sexual behaviour? Absolutely not. It actually means the contrary.

To illustrate, a woman could strip off, rub her breasts in your face and lay down and spread her legs in front of you, and still not want to have sex with you. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Ok so after you it's moral for her to do that right? It's moral for her to use her body to feel domination and power over another no? And the other should have no means of defence against this - no law on his side to for example call the police and to get that woman out of his face. Obviously she doesn't want to have sex - she wants to dominate me. That's a problem.

Just becasue someone is dressed in a way intending to bring about sexual desire from others, it doesn't mean they actually want to have sex with anyone. Wanting people to desire you sexually is distinct from desiring to have sex with someone. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Oh so this wanting people to desire you sexually is a good and honorable desire no? It's good and honorable to want others to feel like they are your property, under the spell and control of your beauty right?

So when a woman rejects them, all the blame falls on them for daring to be sexually desirable (but not available) — TheWillowOfDarkness

Then if they're not available why the hell do they want to be sexually desirable if not in order to have power and dominate?

And this is why your approach can only take us backwards in terms of sexual harassment and assault. It teaches men they are entailed to sex from anyone they find sexually attractive. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Absolutely not.

He's just advocated the position which harms with respect to sexual harassment and sexual assault, which envisions both issues as a question of keeping women locked away from encounters with men, rather than tackling the heart of the issue: that some men think women are their sexual possessions by their mere existence. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No I actually advocated a position which tackles both of those problems at once, instead of only one of them like you.

Look it's very simple. If we are to have a civilised society, folks shouldn't abuse each other. That includes the man who wants to grab a woman because she sexually attracts him regardless of her desire, BUT very importantly, also includes the woman who purposefully dresses that way in order to dominate men and feel she has power over them by having them chase her endlessly and to no end. Both of those actions are shameful - and they ought to be stopped. You on the other hand think only one of those actions is shameful. You are biased towards the women. It's the truth - like all progressives, you only get part of the story right. For you women = good, men = bad. It's very clear.

No, it isn't a loaded question and in light of the various similar stories and the type of horror almost every woman has to go through and then having mysogynists like you suggest they are lying is exactly what creates rape culture. Congratulations, you're clearly part of that problem. — Benkei

Yes good to see you failed to even address any of the points I made in those long paragraphs. Is that what you progressives are like - ignoring the arguments and just pointing fingers at strawmen?