Looks like Frankies blog about Magpies blog has now been closed. Oh the irony.
In any case, I'm curious to know why these blogs would be closed? Sure they might be getting a bit long winded and repetitive, but at the very least couldn't the moderator closing the blogs at least post why they are closing them?
Replies
I wonder who she votes for, Trump?
She's lucky she lives today but in the land of the free - a few centuries ago it would've been off with her head.
Frank, she is American, so it would not surprise to see her vote completely against her interests. Because the Americans have got pretty dumb lately
Or maybe they are finally waking up to the media lies and leftist rubbish
But HOE, you are running! Go have a look at the places where I say X and you claim I say Xa, after which you don’t even lampoon Xa, you go on about Y, the point you originally made. That is classic avoidance.
For instance, I say that you can’t paste an entire video as evidence. You can post the video but you need to be more specific and quote the relevant part of the JP argument you claim warrants your position. Your strategy has been akin to religious apologists who disclaim any form of meanness in the Bible by saying “read the Bible”. Has JP become your Bible to such an extent that you think it satisfactory to just say “read JP”?
Another example: we are debating if JP condones violence, and I lay out his argument that violence is within males, as part of the natural make-up, and he thinks a man who refuses to act violently is not worthy of respect and he says he is quite bummed he is not allowed to hit women because of social conventions. Now you do not address that exact point, instead shirking it and using anecdotes about crazy women that, what, you wish you could have hit? And see that is the issue right there. That is called condonement. JP has set it up that if it were not for a prissy society there would be a lot more violence, as males act out their natural instincts to visit violence upon those they might disagree with and also act out the natural instinct to visit violence on crazy women. You seem to not grasp JP’s point here, because you fail to follow his thinking as it moves from the absolute to the relative. To be frank (hi Frank!), the absolute-relative movement in JP’s thought is admirable. Are there fixed things within changes? To his credit JP raises this question. It is just that JP settles on the absolute, and you miss this settlement. JP says society changes and our rules of conduct change (the relative), so today it’s not cool to hit women. But JP laments this settlement, because males are inherently violent and women inherently unruly (the absolute). Now that we are denied the natural settlement of violence - women cannot be reasoned with (because apparently if reasoning fails to settle something the option must be war not agreement to disagree and settling on a lower order agreement) - society reflects the chaos that is (absolutely) the feminine. Yes, JP says men should act honourably and take responsibility. But what you overlook is the domain of cases in which JP explicitly says those virtues apply. Clean your room. Speak up for yourself. Poor and unemployed? Take responsibility. But his argument explicitly says violence against women is NOT the males fault, and so it is not something for him to take responsibility for. In JP’s logic men are the victims of a prissy society that has allowed women to sometimes be in charge and have sex outside of marriage.
Again, you have to pay attention to what he says, at more than a literal level. JP issues caveats because he knows the social rules of the game, which are relative: JP should men hit women? No, take responsibility and act honourably. OK JP why are men hitting women and what to say about it? Oh that’s bad (relatively speaking). But the absolute now comes to the fore: society has changed to the point where men can’t hit women, so anxieties build up in a context where women are acting out of place and being independent and having sex as they wish. This frustrates mans natural urge to dominate. Society is frustrating mans natural dominance. And here is the kicker ... the point that escapes too many because as they say JP is the stupid persons intellectual ... why blame women not society at that point? Because women have absolute characteristics too. Theirs is to be subordinate. Says JP. Explicitly. And so if these women are wilfully acting out of turn, then they deserve the violence that comes their way because men are just being men and if women would just go back to being women then the men would not bring violence upon them. And JP thinks that’s the key to peace. Know your lane. Stay in it. Chaos ensues if you don’t and it’s your fault. There is a word for this type of thinking and it starts with F. I wonder if you know which word it is?
JP says all this in and through his theory of Jungian archetypes. Maybe the question you need to ask yourself is why is JP such a hero of the alt right men’s rights groups? Is it just because he says men and women are different? Shit that could make Daffy Duck their hero. It’s because JP validates their sense that men are superior and that women have acted out too much, and that men are being restricted from just being blokes who do things like smack those crazy bitches and otherwise keep them in kitchens and beds and tell em to shut up. You know as well as I do that there are types like that, but you are shirking that JP is their hero. He validates them, and guess what, they don’t read much those types but they have sure the hell tead JP from front to cover 12 times, and they have seen what the Jungian archetypes and biological determination view is saying.
Daz, We can go through all your allegations one by one, but first...
Again, do you concede JP is right: Men should refrain from hitting women even in stressful situations if a woman went crazy?
Or do you suggest another action: like hitting a woman?
I'm going to keep repeating this until you stop running from it. Or concede your allegations of JP condoning violence against woman has no legs. It's just your personal feeling or opinion.
HOE, I addressed it. All I can say here is what I would say to a student repeatedly not understanding a point. Try harder.
JP says restrain yourself because social rules are currently against you. But he laments the existence of those social rules and the restraint they counsel. I explained how he reaches that conclusion above. You must try harder, my friend; I’m saying that to you in earnest honesty. If this were some paper you were writing we would be sitting down with the relevant passages and examples and going through them item by item, and then we would be asking about the over-arching architecture of the argument and what that architecture does with the explicit words and the examples. I feel you are not grasping the absolute-relative distinction in JP’s thought and what it does for his thinking.
Okay Daz, I'll concede two points:
1. I agree with you: you have an "uncharitable" view of JP.
2. I was wrong, you don't call JP "uncharitable", you actually call him a "jerk."
See how nice I can play. Now your turn. Answer. Pretty please.
PS:You probably don't see JP as uncharitable I imagine.
HOE, I think I said JP was creepy. Did I write jerk somewhere? If so I recant jerk. A jerk is foolish and selfish and annoying. JP has some intelligence and spends a lot of time counseling others, so hardly a jerk by that definition.
But he is creepy. There is an unpleasantness about him. It’s not a coincidence he is easily considered a misogynist (it’s just not natural that women lead or be independent) and likely a fascist (the obsession with strength and weakness and contempt for weakness, the cult of tradition, the fear of difference and appeal to social frustrations).
Misogyny is a totally natural part of life Daz, it happens in a lot of species and is totally natural and healthy in ours, its completely organic and without it our society would be lightyears behind.
Snake, I’m so accustomed to reading complete gibberish from you that my reflex is to make some snide remark dismissing you and move on. I blame you for this, just so ya know.
But while you are wrong about misogyny you are at least making an argument. An argument is not gibberish even if it is deemed wrong. I will say below that misogyny is not natural but first Let’s look at what you say.
For the most part, you’re a bit slippery in your wording but I suspect accidentally so. Is misogyny natural? What do you mean by natural? If natural means an unconscious or subconscious distrust or contempt for women, maybe stemming from some early trauma or betrayal, well many psychologists describe misogyny as such. But natural could also mean that patriarchal social structures sustain sexism as an ideology, and some just imbibe those norms unreflectively, and distrusting or having contempt for women seems natural and normal to them. Social and political theorists tend to explain misogyny as such.
But you carry on after natural with reference to species and to organic. I take it you don’t mean pesticide or GMO free. So you are saying misogyny is hard wired into males?
For the sake of argument, let’s set aside the disputes that mostly arises here, or whether behavioural psychology is scientific or pseudo-scientific. I side with the latter but can let that go for the moment. Instead, let’s go straight to hard-wired. To discuss the hard-wired claim we first, given this blog, have to note that humans are so distantly related to lobsters you may as well compare us to molluscs. You have to go to chimpanzees, with whom humans share 98% of our genetic code. Now this works out well for you, Snake, because Chimps are arseholes. I mean by this Chimps are violent, sexist brutes. Domineering males control territories and the females within those territories.
But there is, as you should know by now if debating me, a twist. All is not lost when I say misogyny is not hard wired. Turns out humans also share 98% of our genetic code with bonobos. And bonobos are not arseholes. I think many humans, especially males, even misogynist males, would like to live like the bonobos. Bonobos are polyamorous and have a social structure based around cooperative orgies. Woohoo!!! They are also bisexual and have a matriarchal social structure. Probably a whole bunch of males saying oh, wait, for one reason or the other; but whatever.
Evolutionary biologist know that Humans split from Chimps and Bonobos about 6 million years ago and that Chimps and Bonobos split from each other much more recently (can’t recall but 1-2 million years ago). More importantly, turns out Chimps and Bonobos are equally related to their common ancestor with Humans, but Bonobos have undergone less genetic drift, suggesting humans are closer to Bonobos than to Chimps. That last part is still being debated, as is whether the evolutionary trail groups humans and Chimps or humans and bonobos.
What does all of this tell us? It tells us that if anything about sexual relations is hard-wired, it’s equally likely humans got the bonobo sexual cooperation and respect as the Chimp violent dominance. Moreover, it tells us it’s most likely we got both.
Men cant blame biology, evolutionary or not, for being misogynist. We’ve got misogyny and not-misogyny at the least, so the behavioural psychology argument fails.
-
24
-
25
-
26
-
27
-
28
of 29 Next