I came across this piece on Scott Adam's blog and found it quite interesting. Thought others here might find it interesting too:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/133406477506/global-gender-war#_=_
So if you are wondering how men become cold-blooded killers, it isn't religion that is doing it. If you put me in that situation, I can say with confidence I would sign up for suicide bomb duty. And I'm not even a believer. Men like hugging better than they like killing. But if you take away my access to hugging, I will probably start killing, just to feel something. I'm designed that way. I'm a normal boy. And I make no apology for it.
Now consider the controversy over the Syrian immigrants. The photos show mostly men of fighting age. No one cares about adult men, so a 1% chance of a hidden terrorist in the group – who might someday kill women and children – is unacceptable. I have twice blogged on the idea of siphoning out the women and small kids from the Caliphate and leaving millions of innocent adult men to suffer and die. I don't recall anyone complaining about leaving millions of innocent adult males to horrible suffering. In this country, any solution to a problem that involves killing millions of adult men is automatically on the table.
If you kill infidels, you will be rewarded with virgins in heaven. But if you kill your own leaders today – the ones holding the leash on your balls – you can have access to women tomorrow. And tomorrow is sooner.
Related Stories
Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has posted a blog entry on gender discrimination. His goal is to gather as many links as possible on all sides of the issue; he intends to try to summarize what's out there in a subsequent post. His blog entry includes a few interesting, possibly insightful comments, for example:
"Some men are bullies and assholes. And most men are assholes at least some of the time. When men are bullies and assholes to each other, we interpret it as exactly that. But if I observe those same bullies and assholes mistreating a woman, I interpret it as sexism. I assume others see it the same way.
"The other day a good friend who works as a massage therapist was describing a time in her past she was a victim of gender discrimination. The story sounded convincing to me. Then I asked if she knew I would not have considered her as my massage therapist if she were a man. Cricket noises."
"My larger point today is that any discussion of gender in the workplace is like two blind people standing on an elephant and arguing whether the elephant is a sandwich or a bar of soap. Both are 100% wrong. That includes me."
Personally, I find Adams' writing to be frequently interesting — he at least tries to find his way around traditional blindspots. Sometimes he even succeeds. Since gender discrimination is so often a topic in technical fields, perhaps Soylentils will find this of interest...
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday November 20 2015, @11:51PM
I just wanted to post this when I saw this in the queue:
Gender pay gap 'may take 118 years to close' - World Economic Forum [bbc.com]
Like there will be employment as we know it 118 years. We may even destroy human civilization by then.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 20 2015, @11:58PM
Right but there is no wage gap. Well, no statistically significant one. Yes, grand total women made 77% what men made. And to do this they worked 76% as many hours. Math, bitches. Juggs, I demand a 1% raise.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Saturday November 21 2015, @01:14AM
And these numbers you quoted came from where, exactly?
I can 86% of 79% straight out of my ass too, but you don't see me flaunting it.
(Score: 5, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:01AM
You're right, my bad; should have checked that source before I quoted it. The proper number is women work 69% the hours men work [bls.gov]. The 77% number was out of the mouth of every feminist ever, including the President. I'll take them at their word.
Now you may say "but less women have jobs than men!!!1!1!!eleven!". That's true. That bullshit 77% number is what women made period vs what men made period. So, factoring in only those actually working [dol.gov] and accounting for hours worked, each man made 83% on average what his average female counterpart did per hour. Looks like I'll be hitting Juggs up for a 17% raise instead of a 1% raise.
Facts. Ain't they just motherfuckers when they run contrary to your narrative?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:28AM
As a very wise person once said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Now we can add "Mighty Buzzard with statistics." Do you knot thing that wen thy comparizoned wymen's wages for equyl work it wassnt this all convoluted by numbers and such? Apples and oranges? Pears and bananas? Why is Dogbert a dog, anyway?
(Score: 5, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:54AM
You're absolutely right. My statistics do not take into account experience or education or apples to apples jobs. Which has been a major beef from MRAs about the bullshit 77% statistic. And it's why I gave the feminists a bit of their own medicine back upside the chops just now.
Now there have been studies done that took all these things into account as well as hours worked and the like. Know what they found? There is no significant statistical difference [huffingtonpost.com] in pay rates when you actually account for everything possible.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:02AM
And it's why I gave the feminists a bit of their own medicine back upside the chops just now.
You would strike a woman? You, sir, are a cad and a bounder, who does not understand in the slightest what it means to be a man, let alone a proper gentle-man! Notice the prefix. I would suggest, that if you are so threatened by "feminists" as to feel a need to resort to blows, that you be my guest instead, and I will gladly knock you on your misogynist ass.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:46PM
All this study shows is that for "male and female college graduates one year after graduation," the wage gap is "only 7%."
So 1: It does exist and 7% is statistically relevant.
And 2: To get even this close you have to cherry pick the hell out of the data set.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 21 2015, @03:15PM
Not really. Not when you consider women have far less self-confidence on average than men and that self-confidence is not just good but absolutely necessary in business. Honestly, I'd expect there to be a larger margin. That there isn't means women are getting paid more than they're worth.
You were bitching about the data not being apples to apples and now you're bitching when someone makes the attempt? Pick an argument, you don't get both.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday November 21 2015, @03:28PM
You were bitching about the data not being apples to apples and now you're bitching when someone makes the attempt?
No, I challenged you to provide some evidence for your claim that the wage gap doesn't exist. The best you could do is reduce the gap to 7% (in entry level positions only).
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:08PM
Normally I'd take you up on your offer because I've seen a study done more than twenty years ago that narrows it to a statistically insignificant amount but it's nap time for me and, really, the burden of proof is not on me. As the accuser, you're the one who has to prove it does exist. Without resorting to bullshit numbers that take almost no factors of actual life into account, thank you. Really prove it exists.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:38AM
I fully expect this post to be modded flamebait just like the last one. I'll double down on your analysis: Women have 70-95%* of the purchasing power in the US.
It really doesn't matter if men make more money. Men could make 40% more than women and women would still be better off. Assuming the average of 80% and equal pay is realized, that means the average woman in the US would spend 100% of her own money and then spends 60% of a man's money on top of that. What is the value of money if you don't get to spend it? Maybe we should be talking about the massive spending gap instead of the mythical wage gap.
*Depending on who you believe: Forbes 70-80, WSJ 80+, She-conomy and a few associated women's rights organizations say 95%.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:51AM
What is the value of money if you don't get to spend it?
How about saving it and properly investing it so that you can become financially independent and retire significantly early? But clearly wasting your money on frivolous nonsense is more important. You need to Consume to be happy, Consumer!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:06AM
How about saving it and properly investing it so that you can become financially independent and retire significantly early?
And die as soon as possible thus relieving the earth of your pathetic and meaningless existence. Yes, retirement. Ha.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:21PM
If I save my own money and retire early, that's up to me.
And you seem to assume that the only useful people are those who are wage slaves. Why? A lot of that work is utterly useless. In my retirement, I have worked on many free software projects and did lots of volunteer work, which benefits others. So why do you assume you have to be a corporate drone to be useful? Is that the result of indoctrination?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:29AM
As the old saw goes, women have half the money and all the pussy.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Non Sequor on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:35AM
Data I've been working with supports the 77% number on an hours adjusted basis.
However, the ratio changes to 90% when you exclude people earning over $100,000 per year and 97% when you use a $70,000 threshold.
Rates of men and women in management and professional jobs appear to be similar. If the source of this is in the upper end of the income distribution, I'd speculate that within the management and professional categories, there's still a differential where there are fewer women in the highest income categories. Business ownership may also be a factor.
That's not quite the same thing as 77 cents for each dollar a man makes, but it's not necessarily something to be too dismissive of. One argument I've heard is that in order to get the biggest promotions, you really need to make a name for yourself in your 30s and 40s, and having children (and spending time with them) makes this more difficult.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 21 2015, @05:04AM
Yup, making a personal choice to place family ahead of career is not something that needs society to adjust for though. You makes your choices, you takes the consequences, you don't bitch.
The confidence deficit also plays a significant part no doubt. Women are significantly less likely to ask for a raise/promotion or to put their ideas forward unsolicited. It's a very, very complex matter and anyone trying to give you an exact number should be disbelieved before they even finish speaking and mocked until they pony up with solid, well-researched proof.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday November 21 2015, @03:04PM
...making a personal choice to place family ahead of career...
Not much of choice when men don't get paternity leave...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 21 2015, @03:18PM
S'a fair point. How bout some equality for the guys, yo?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday November 21 2015, @03:59PM
S'a fair point. How bout some equality for the guys, yo?
You agree with the Feminists on this one. [huffingtonpost.com]
(Score: 1) by jrial on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:54PM
Yes, that sometimes happens in discussions. Just because one disagrees with most of the propaganda doesn't mean they have to disagree with the sensible, rational arguments too.
I happen to disagree with most of the current feminist narrative. I don't think it's a problem if both genders aren't treated exactly the same in all possible situations. For me it's perfectly acceptable that group A gets some perks and some disadvantages compared to group B and the same holding true in the other direction. As long as on average, the perks and drawbacks cancel each other out. If a woman thinks I should be equally involved in the household (cooking, cleaning, groceries, ...), then I think it's not unreasonably for me to expect her to pull her weight too when it comes to maintaining the car, fixing the plumbing and electricity and what have you. But that would be a suboptimal solution; on average, women tend to be better at some tasks such as cooking, cleaning, or perhaps less patronising: interior decoration. And on average, men are better with plumbing, car mechanics (although that's quickly becoming a lost art) and other "manly" things. The solution is not demanding that each gender wastes their time on tasks they generally tend to be worse at to even out the load across all tasks. The solution is for each individual to focus on the tasks they're better suited for. If that means in my household I end up being the cook (I am quite good at it and enjoy doing it) and my wife the one changing the distribution belt, so be it. But since I am absolutely shit at cleaning, unless she's equally crap at it than I am, yes, I would appreciate it if she did in 1 hour what would take me 3 rather than giving me crap about me reinforcing gender roles.
Install windows on my workstation? You crazy? Got any idea how much I paid for the damn thing?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:30PM
I agree with egalitarians. Feminists, that depends on if you're talking ones like Christina Hoff Sommers or the blue-haired, shrieking millennials who wouldn't piss on a man if he were on fire.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 21 2015, @05:13AM
You didn't factor in risk. Every time someone runs at the mouth about how dangerous a cop's job is, someone else responds with a list of the most dangerous jobs. I've worked in some of those most dangerous jobs, throughout my life. I would counter the SJW's claims that I deserved more pay for driving a log truck out into the woods, than any male or female who sits in an air conditioned office with a coffee pot and vending machines only steps away from their desks.
While few women are found in those dangerous occupations, the women who are in those occupations seem to get the same pay as the men. Which supports one claim that Adams makes - when women are willing to take the same risks as men, they get equal pay.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 21 2015, @11:12AM
Yup, see my response to Non Sequor above. I didn't take hardly any actual relevant variables into account, the same as feminists don't.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Saturday November 21 2015, @12:09AM
No no, they are perfectly correct.
Its just that everyone employed except the 1% will be earning min wage. (which will be the equivalent of $5/hour) The rest will be a starving, pathetic example to everyone else what happens if you don't tow the line.
Like now, but worse.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Saturday November 21 2015, @12:44AM
It's just as likely that 1% will be managing all the resources of the society, and the rest will be sitting on basic income - which means minimal allocation of food and water to survive while living in rooms of minimum quality. This is a more logical endgame if you consider that automation will require fewer and fewer workers of higher and higher intelligence and education. Basic income is all fine and good, but who ever said that it will be plentiful? You can preview it today in Social Security offices.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:13AM
That is more or less what I was saying although you appear to be implying otherwise. There needs to be the destitute as a means of social control - it is not out of necessity.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:22AM
The only difference is that in my scenario only 1% will be employed - as owners, or as managers, or as engineers at huge automated factories. Everyone else will be unemployed, as the world will not require so many workers anymore.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:34AM
This is a more logical endgame if you consider that automation will require fewer and fewer workers of higher and higher intelligence and education.
That claim has never been true. This claim about automation eliminating jobs ignores that the only places which even appear to have this problem are doing their darnest to punish employers and leave potential workers unemployed or underemployed. If you make employing someone more onerous and more expensive, then you get less jobs as a result.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tftp on Saturday November 21 2015, @05:04AM
That may be so. But how many places do you know in the first world that ever in living memory make employing someone less onerous and less expensive? The trend is actually in the opposite direction. It became very visible in last year when costs of Obamacare forced some businesses to cut hours of their workers, and in this year when some restaurants in Seattle had to close after the city increased their costs. Taxes of all kinds are very rarely going down. Someone has to pay for the basic income, and that creates positive feedback. This affects the picture of employment, I agree. But that's an integral part of the game - human labor will eventually become so expensive, compared to the cost of their product, that it becomes neither profitable nor even possible for a business to afford workers.
For a reference, imagine that you want to open your own trench digging company and hire one (1) worker. How much cash will you need to cover your worker's salary and burdening for one year? How much can you charge for your worker's time? I believe that after very simple calculations you will conclude that you'd rather buy a backhoe and operate it yourself. My vision of the future is similar to that: the threshold of employing humans will be so high that only the most necessary and most valuable will be employed - in essence, just a handful of engineers who maintain the large machinery of an automated factory.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:13PM
But how many places do you know in the first world that ever in living memory make employing someone less onerous and less expensive? The trend is actually in the opposite direction.
That sounds very different from
if you consider that automation will require fewer and fewer workers of higher and higher intelligence and education
or
as the world will not require so many workers anymore
Automation may require fewer and fewer workers, but it has the effect of increasing demand for more efficient human labor as a result - it's a centuries old trend which continues through today (though the demand manifests in countries which are not actively discouraging employment).
I'll take these concerns seriously when we start trying to fix the problem.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday November 21 2015, @11:55PM
Well, those two are completely different processes - one social, another technological. But they often combine to make things worse.
Automation may require fewer and fewer workers, but it has the effect of increasing demand for more efficient human labor as a result
That's my point, just expressed in different words. Only super-efficient workers will remain; only they can compete with a whole factory of robots. An engineer who can repair a robot is necessary, as [so far] he cannot be replaced by a machine. A cleaner of the factory floor can be replaced - and is replaced already. I have seen huge production lines where no human was in sight... nor one would be necessary... and it was back in 1980s. Not every product can yet be manufactured on such machines, technologically, but we are getting there. You can watch videos [youtube.com] of modern automated chicken farms - you will see thousands of birds in those videos, thousands of eggs, but no humans on the floor. Add a conveyor of chicken feed from an automated grain farm, and you are all set. Humans? A single shift manager is enough, plus a standby team of technicians who serve 10, or 100, such farms (depending on reliability of equipment.)
though the demand manifests in countries which are not actively discouraging employment
China and FoxConn come to mind immediately. But even then... over time, the society evolves; it wants to work less and to earn more. Already China is looking at Africa as a fallback location for their sweatshops. Chinese workers are already becoming more demanding - they - imagine that - refuse to work 24/7 for a cup of rice per day! But that demand - which is not entirely without reason - puts them behind the robots in cost and efficiency. Not every operation can be automated yet, so FoxConn is not yet a human-free facility; but it will be one - if not in ten years, then in twenty, or thirty. Eventually the industrialists of the world will run out of "countries which are not actively discouraging employment" - and employment will be discouraged everywhere. The majority of humans cannot compete with robots. Just ask bank tellers about that - they already are losing to ATMs and online banking. Tellers are still manning the windows, but as soon as the banks figure out that they can ask for a surcharge for human touch the lines to them will start disappearing. Automated checkout stands are showing up in Home Depot, Safeway, and many other places - loss to theft is less than the cost of a clerk. Vending machines can remove even that loss. You think Safeway cannot sell *everything* through the vending machines? They surely can, as the only missing piece today is the automated arm that would pick the package and give it to you - after you paid. What stops them? Just the insufficient ROI, so far, as hiring humans is still affordable enough. But fast food restaurants are already experimenting with sandwich [youtube.com] making machines [amequipmentsales.com]. That VisiDiner only costs $3,850 - about the monthly cost of a human clerk.
So who will be still employed at that time? Only the technicians who keep the factories in order, and the engineers who invent new robots, and the scientists (who probably won't be replaced by an AI for a while.) Where the workers remain, say in construction, they will be driving not a shovel or a jackhammer, but a large, complex machine that does everything, more or less like modern re-pavement machines. A quote from Red Rising:
The drillers of my clan chatter some gossip over the comm in my ear as I ride atop the claw drill. I’m alone in this deep tunnel atop a machine built like a titanic metal hand, one that grasps and gnaws at the ground. I control its rockmelting digits from the holster seat atop the drill, just where the elbow joint would be. There, my fingers fit into control gloves that manipulate the many tentacle-like drills some ninety meters below my perch. To be a Helldiver, they say your fingers must flicker fast as tongues of fire. Mine flicker faster.
But even that is only good for a Sci-Fi story. In reality even a modern PC would do a better job than a human in that role. A human is not good when unwavering attention to millions of details is needed 24/7. A human is OK when it is necessary to evaluate a single problem offline and design a way around it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 22 2015, @03:28AM
That's my point, just expressed in different words.
No. When I said "increasing demand for more efficient labor" I didn't mean that demand was increasing only for labor that was more efficient, but rather that labor was becoming more efficient due to automation and hence demand for that labor increased as a result of that increased efficiency.
China and FoxConn come to mind immediately.
Exactly.
Already China is looking at Africa as a fallback location for their sweatshops.
Doesn't sound like you get it. Labor isn't just about sweatshops. We left the 19th century behind a long time ago.
Not every operation can be automated yet, so FoxConn is not yet a human-free facility
Again doesn't sound like you get it. FoxConn employs over a million people. They are far away from a "human-free" facility. Foxconn's automation not only replaces human jobs, it enables Foxconn to employ more people than ever before.
Automated checkout stands are showing up in Home Depot, Safeway, and many other places - loss to theft is less than the cost of a clerk.
Once again, in countries such as the US where Home Depot, Safeway, and many other places are strongly discouraged from employing clerks.
So who will be still employed at that time?
That depends. Does your system employ people or unemploy people? Answer that question and you'll answer the question of who is employed. It's worth noting that our modern societies have just over the past couple of decades massively increased the demand for relatively unskilled, high school level education. That's most of Foxconn's workforce, for example. The reality runs counter to the myth.
A human is not good when unwavering attention to millions of details is needed 24/7.
That's never been a human job.
You have stated or implied a number of myths, such as the myth that automation reduces total employment, that the world is transitioning to highly skilled labor only, and that companies are only interested in the very cheapest labor that they can find. There's plenty of evidence that none of these claims are true. Global employment is higher and higher quality than it's ever been before. Even the lowest skilled people find better work than they would have before. Companies can't just be interested in cheap labor because otherwise why employ developed world labor at all? And how are you going to set up a high tech industry in a backwater part of the world? Where does the infrastructure they need come from? Automation has been increasing for centuries, when are we going to stop employing unskilled labor? Once again, these issues are not thought through and reality has been ignored.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:25PM
Well, if AI improves enough, it will hopefully happen on a mass scale.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 22 2015, @03:29AM
Well, if AI improves enough, it will hopefully happen on a mass scale.
What will happen? Everyone loses their job and becomes a deadbeat?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 22 2015, @07:46PM
Why shouldn't companies strive to be as effective and efficient as possible? If we hold back technological innovation merely so people can do jobs that they're inefficient at, then that is a travesty.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:38AM
Grammar nazi moment. Did you mean this,
http://www.aoos.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/healy-scientists.jpg [aoos.org]
Or this?
http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/toe-party-line-20909706.jpg [dreamstime.com]
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:16AM
It is "Tow that barge, hump that bale, get a little drunk, and you'll wind up in jail". Something about the Erie Canal. But the confusion is respendulant. If you pull on a line, you could be towing the barge, but usually you are toe-ing the line as in putting your foot-parts up to it.
Just remember, it is the quality of our Grammar-nazis that is going to make SoylentNews stand head and shoulders (and thesaurus!) above all the other slightly geeky news aggregation sights cites sites out there. Treasure them.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:42AM
That's globally, I'm not sure anybody claims that there aren't places where women are being paid less for the same amount of work. What you're failing to grasp is context. The context of the assertions that there is no wage gap is in the US and typically places where it's actually being debated. In places where the problem is most severe, there's little or no debate about the issue.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @11:58PM
Maybe he should stay with the safe environment of Dilbert. Otherwise, he's bound to say something that a SJW of any dogma will take exception to.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Saturday November 21 2015, @12:54AM
I'm not a SJW, and I took exception to some of it, actually. For one thing he really seems to promulgate a feeling of men being entitled to sex. In practice that doesn't really work - if sex is not something that both he and she are enthusiastic about, then there's going to be resentment afterward. And that's the best case scenario. Take this attitude of entitlement too far and you really are moving towards rape.
FYI, Scott, married people have sex more often than single people.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @01:22AM
Scott Adams is single _and_ gay? Wow, the things you find out on SoylentNews!
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Saturday November 21 2015, @01:25AM
Indeed. If you carry that further, you have to conclude that religious fanatics are by definition incapable of meaningful long lasting adult relationships based on equality. They may claim to know the true meaning of life, but they actually are destined to never know it.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:06AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:37AM
Aw you are ruining his *idea* of what someone who is religious is like. Shame on you! /sarc
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:39AM
He seems to be a rational person, I clicked some links and I didn't see any religious fanatic stuff there. But basing one's beliefs on religion means one isn't rational. Unless he's rationally come to that equality conviction and searched for some religious text afterward to stick it to.
That's the other way around of what I was trying to say. Religious fanatics to me are people who are "philosophically challenged" and blindly base their behavior on some ancient book. People who need an ancient book to test their thoughts against are just "philosophically hindered". People who don't need religion at all are philosophically liberated.
I hope that came out right, English is not my first language.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:48AM
It came out quite well, I think - your English is probably better than most USians.
Religious fanatic is probably a term that means something slightly different to everybody. I'd call myself a fanatic, but not many would willingly accept that term. As to whether I'm rational or not, you be the judge. I'm probably not rational all the time, regardless. :)
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @07:00AM
your English is probably better than most USians
USians
Yours sucks though.
Since we are making up new terms for other people do I get to call you an Eurian? (Say it out loud for best effect.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:27PM
Yours sucks though.
Why? Did you not understand what he meant? I can make up any term I want; that's the nature of language. Those who don't realize that language evolves are left in the dust. I only consider it a problem when someone communicates in a way that is not understandable, which defeats the purpose.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:48AM
"People who need an ancient book to test their thoughts against are just "philosophically hindered"."
So, uhhh, where do philosophers get their ideas?
Plato
Aristotle
Descartes
Marx
Kant
Epicurus
Neitsche
Kierkegaard
Aquinas
Locke
Socrates
Augustine of Hippo
Hume
Heraclitus
Foulcaut
Russel
Spinoza
I guess the presumption is that mankind has developed philosophy just in the past 100 years or so, in the spare time between creating airplanes and automobiles and the internet.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:22AM
You put Spinoza after Russell, and misspelled Lord Russell? It is not the books, Runaway, it is being about to read them, understand them, engage the arguments, and form your own philosophical position. Argumentum ad Auctoritas not allowed. Aristotle was wrong about a few things, after all.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:53AM
We're all wrong about a few things, after all. Understanding that you are not always right, and that there are legitimate, alternative points of view is what prevents many of us from just gunning down the idiots who argue against us.
I'm reminded of something I read somewhere - something like, "You're allowed to be stupid, but please, stop abusing the privilege." Note - I don't mean that to be taken personally.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Saturday November 21 2015, @10:30AM
I knew I wasn't fully clear but couldn't find better wording yesterday. Try this instead: "people who need an ancient book to categorize their thoughts are philosophically hindered". They have free thoughts but only allow those thoughts that they can interpret the book to match with. The list of people you mentioned allowed themselves to think outside the box and develop new ideas, and are still remembered for that. I got the realization that all people are basically equal at a young age, for me personally that was a philosophical breakthrough. Ditching religion was the next. But sadly not everyone in this world allows themselves this freedom of thought.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @01:31AM
The offending section FTFA
I don't see entitlement, I see honesty. If my girl has a headache, is cold, not in the mood or what ever, no amount of begging will get me anything more than a disgruntled hand-job, nor would I want it anymore. You're right about sex and the need for consent, but there's not even one inkling of rape in that whole article, unless you count wild adolescent hormones as rape-ish. In this messed up world, there are many more important things to be legitimately upset about that don't involve berating a man for making a blog post and speaking his mind on how he sees the world. SJWs please look elsewhere.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jdavidb on Saturday November 21 2015, @01:51AM
It's that first sentence that I take issue with: "When we get home, access to sex is strictly controlled by the woman." Of course access to sex is and should be strictly controlled by the woman. Sex shouldn't happen unless they are both enthusiastic about it. In that sense it's "strictly controlled," by both of them, but of course typically the man is much more likely to be enthusiastic. Of course that isn't always the case - sometimes she is enthusiastic and he is not! (I'm sure it happened somewhere at least once in the last millennium.)
Sex should absolutely happen in an environment and relationship that makes the woman feel enthusiastic about sex. If that's not the case, then the relationship ought to be adjusted until she's enthusiastic. It's for the happiness and the emotional health of all concerned. Sex usually has a lot less emotional repercussions for a man than a woman. She shouldn't have to deal with negative emotional repercussions simply because he's not dedicated enough to her to learn how to construct an environment and relationship that makes her feel enthusiastic about sex. He ought to care for her this much, at least. If he doesn't want to do that, prostitutes and porn are out there.
If a woman doesn't want to set the bar as high as I'm describing, that's certainly her choice. But many women find that they are very unhappy if they have sex when they are not enthusiastic. And in most cases, if he invests some time and effort in learning to meet her emotional needs, he can create a relationship in which she continues to be enthusiastic about sex long term.
Nobody should have to give up control in a relationship. Not the man and not the woman. The sentence about access to sex being strictly controlled by the woman indicates that Scott Adams feels that the woman should give up some of that control for the man's benefit. This is just a bad idea for any issue in a relationship (not just sex), and when you start using words that can be taken to mean that a woman should give up control over her body, you are getting into an area where you are going to get a lot of negative emotional reactions from most normal women, not to mention complete vitriol from some who are into activism and the hopeless cause of straightening out everybody in the world.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday November 21 2015, @01:02PM
This is some of the most overtly misandrist dribble I've seen in a while. Of course women should be giving up some of that power, they shouldn't have had it in the first place!
What you're describing is domestic violence. Wholehearted consent isn't the standard here, the question is whether or not both parties are willing to consent. Unless both parties require about the same amount of sex, the low demand partner is going to have to agree to some sex that they aren't enthusiastic about for the health of the marriage.
It's way too common for women to be mad about something and use that as an excuse to punish the husband by withholding sex. That's abuse and there's really no other way of looking at it. It's not something that the husband can really defend against other than by seeking a divorce.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Saturday November 21 2015, @01:24PM
Unless both parties require about the same amount of sex, the low demand partner is going to have to agree to some sex that they aren't enthusiastic about for the health of the marriage.
Do you have any actual credentials or studies? I'm going by the experience and research of this marriage counselor [marriagebuilders.com] who has helped save marriages for decades. In his words, regarding statements like this, "It's dangerous stuff you are recommending. It ruins marriages."
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday November 22 2015, @12:36PM
Are you seriously arguing that sex isn't for bonding as well as making babies? There's at on of research evidence out there that oxytocin levels spike during and immediately after sex and oxytocin itself is primarily about bonding people together. Not to mention the resentment from somebody holding out.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-and-gratitude/201310/oxytocin-the-love-and-trust-hormone-can-be-deceptive [psychologytoday.com]
There are serious problems associated with long periods of time without sex.
http://www.articlesbase.com/womens-health-articles/effects-of-celibacy-454770.html [articlesbase.com]
Also, that link has nothing to do with the passage you quoted.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Sunday November 22 2015, @12:49PM
Are you seriously arguing that sex isn't for bonding as well as making babies?
No.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Sunday November 22 2015, @12:53PM
There are serious problems associated with long periods of time without sex.
There are also serious problems for a woman if she has sex when she is not enthusiastic about it, so since a man needs sex it would behoove him to learn how to create a relationship and environment that leads to her being enthusiastic about sex.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:33PM
Unless both parties require about the same amount of sex, the low demand partner is going to have to agree to some sex that they aren't enthusiastic about for the health of the marriage.
I wonder why these discussions are always about marriage. The exact same thing could be said if you just replaced that word with "relationship". Marriage is just a silly social ritual that some people seem to believe is magic; I see little reason to assume that it's an inevitability in a relationship or that it will magically improve everything.
That's abuse and there's really no other way of looking at it.
Controlling your own body is abusing someone else? You're not entitled to sex in the first place. If someone doesn't consent to having sex with you, you have not lost anything, so there's no conceivable way withholding sex could qualify as "abuse".
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Sunday November 22 2015, @01:45AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Sunday November 22 2015, @01:47AM
Controlling your own body is abusing someone else? You're not entitled to sex in the first place.
Yes, exactly! In Dr. Harley's nomenclature, to engage in abuse, you have to actually do something. Not doing something is not abuse, and in fact he encourages you to not do something in your relationship if you are not enthusiastic about it.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday November 22 2015, @12:23PM
Withholding is an action you engage in in this context. Not having sex because you're physically unable is one thing, not having sex to control the other person is quite a different thing.
And yes, withholding sex definitely is a form of abuse. You see it on TV all the time being used as abuse and nobody seems to care. But, anytime you're doing something to take power from somebody else and use it to control them, that is abuse. If Dr. Harley is arguing otherwise, then he's a fucking moron that ought to have his license revoked because that's not competent psychological treatment.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Sunday November 22 2015, @12:54PM
If Dr. Harley is arguing otherwise, then he's a fucking moron that ought to have his license revoked because that's not competent psychological treatment.
The thing is, his approach leads to a happy relationship with lots of sex, whereas the approach of calling your wife or girlfriend an abuser or otherwise lecturing her for not having sex with you leads to loneliness and sexual frustration.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @01:56AM
How is sex strictly controlled by the woman? A man could 'control' access to sex simply by not consenting. You have just as much power as she does, as both need to consent. And there is no issue with this.
With that said, if you don't want to comply with silly gender norms, then don't.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:17AM
Not me. Married 30+ years. No sex or even touch for 4 years. Life is gray.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:22AM
Hey, is that you, Scott Adams? Hey everybody! Scott Adams is a Soylentil! What an honor! Or maybe not.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:37AM
Send an email to this counselor [soylentnews.org] and he may be able to help you find out how to turn that around.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:52AM
I'm not a SJW, and I took exception to some of it, actually. For one thing he really seems to promulgate a feeling of men being entitled to sex.
I think the last half of your sentence gives the lie to the first part. I didn't see any sense of entitlement. Expectations are NOT the same of entitlement, in in general most humans can expect sex now and then.
His general tenant is
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Islam doesn’t look so dangerous in countries where women can vote.
Some of you guys seem to get side-tracked with the small supporting details that he provides, and loose site of the big picture.
His basic tenant is rather insightful. And his conclusion is equally insightful. It has nothing to do with pay equality.
The problem is that wherever Muslims become anything over X% (and X is arguably somewhere between 20% to 50%) women lose their rights to vote, and many other rights. If not legally, then by force of males. (Even in the US, many Muslim women vote exactly as their male relatives instruct them, or not at all. Its one of the major problems with Vote by Mail. It often becomes Vote by Male.)
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NoMaster on Saturday November 21 2015, @05:32AM
That's 4 off the top of my head where the fact that women have held ministerial / leadership positions suggests your blanket statement is a load of shit.
Live free or fuck off and take your naïve Libertarian fantasies with you...
(Score: 1, Troll) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday November 21 2015, @12:07AM
I would like to partially quote Commander Jason Locke: If it were up to me, Soylent, I'd take every military age man and woman, put a gun in their hands and march them straight on Daesh.
Eh, but that would probably never work in a million years.
Still, though, they want to live in the 1st world instead of under Daesh, especially in the USA, they can adopt some of our values like gender equality (that goes for social justice bullies as well) and stand your ground/row, row fight the power!
(Score: 2) by ah.clem on Saturday November 21 2015, @01:01AM
Good luck with a draft now. The Government learned that lesson after Viet Nam. Oh, and no body counts on the nightly news either, especially civilian. Makes it easier to run seemingly invisible wars and keep a docile public. And easier to pump the jingoism/patriotism directly into TV watching brains (take a look at the articles on the DOD spenging over 50M to sports teams to play the national anthem to instill patriotism (e.g. http://www.post-gazette.com/news/nation/2015/11/06/Department-of-Defense-paid-53-million-to-pro-sports-for-military-tributes-report-says/stories/201511060140 [post-gazette.com]), just my opinion and experience.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @01:25AM
Good luck with a draft now. The Government learned that lesson after Viet Nam. Oh, and no body counts on the nightly news either, especially civilian. Makes it easier to run seemingly invisible wars and keep a docile public.
Yep. So much easier to go to war when 95% of the population literally has no skin in the game. No mothers complaining to congress or using facebook to organize public protests. And the 5% who do have children at risk of dying in combat are the ones with the least political capital to spend on opposition to war.
(Score: 4, Funny) by melikamp on Saturday November 21 2015, @01:52AM
|
,'~'.
/ \
| ____|_
| '___,,_' .----------------.
| ||(o |o)| ( KILL ALL HUMANS! )
| ------- ,----------------'
| _____| -'
\ '####,
-------
/________\
( ) |)
'_ ' ,------|\ _
/_ / | |_\ ||
/_ /| | o| _\ _||
/_ / | | |\ _\____//' |
( ( | | | (_,_,_,____/
\ _\ | ------|
\ _\|_________|
\ _\ \__\\__\
|__| |__||__|
||/__/ |__||__|
|__||__|
|__||__|
/__)/__)
/__//__/
/__//__/
/__//__/.
.' '. '.
(_kOs____)____)
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:54AM
Actually - I don't think it was the draft, so much as the reasons for the draft. Draftees or volunteers didn't much matter, it was deemed a huge waste to send our young men overseas to die for utterly stupid reasons that benefitted no one at all. If/when we face an existential threat, the draft will come back, and relatively few people will bitch about it.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @01:46PM
And why should anyone in their right minds be so happy to be forced by their government to go to war against a menace their same wicked government created? A more effective way of stopping such problems in the future would be bringing to justice the evil psychopaths who thought it was a good idea.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/newly-declassified-u-s-government-documents-the-west-supported-the-creation-of-isis.html [washingtonsblog.com]
http://nypost.com/2015/05/30/how-the-us-created-the-camp-where-isis-was-born/ [nypost.com]
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq [theguardian.com]
http://time.com/4117585/paris-attacks-isis-war/ [time.com]
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/10/the-u-s-government-supplied-isis-iconic-pickup-trucks.html [washingtonsblog.com]
Many of those "rebel groups" the US armed became friendly with the ISIS or even joined them.
"We can't fight on the crusaders' side against a Muslim. Allah said in the Koran that 'those who support them become one of them.'"
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/06/world/meast/isis-al-nusra-syria/ [cnn.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:55PM
Different day, different time, different enemy. I was referring to how willingly the population will accept the draft in the face of an existential threat. ISIS poses no real threat to me and mine, today. It DOES represent a threat to large segments of the European population. It represents a gigantic threat to mid-Eastern populations. Regarding the draft - the US has no draft today. The Kurds, on the other hand, seem to be mobilizing a huge part of it's population. Europe? I guess most of Europe has no draft, but suddenly, France, among others, is seeing a tremendous increase in volunteers.
Acceptance of the draft is dependent on perception.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by tibman on Saturday November 21 2015, @03:02AM
It is still somewhat surprising to me that the US hasn't deployed conventional troops in large numbers. We seem to be reducing numbers everywhere.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @03:18AM
Good. We shouldn't play the world police. Now if only we could half the budget on defense and military spending.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:29AM
Don't quit your day job. It could be you only have one talent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @03:46AM
I have one question: Snow submitted this? Hmmmm.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:21AM
Polygamy may indeed be causing desperation and aggression. If some men get multiple wives, others have to get none to make the math work, and that leads to a lot of blue-ball rage. Young men need realistic civilized options or they war and riot, period. Same with disenfranchised minorities.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:30AM
and that leads to a lot of blue-ball rage.
No, it doesn't. This reminds me of the excuse that Indian truck drivers gave for the fact that they frequented prostitutes so much: you see, the heat of the engines of their trucks increased the heat of, um, their motors, so they needed release. Yeah, right. No, if all these randy young men cannot find suitable females, we know what happens to them. They either turn homosexual or devote themselves exclusively to The World of Warcraft. If fact, I would not be surprised to find out that Dilbert . . . . Nah! Couldn't be!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 22 2015, @03:58AM
No, if all these randy young men cannot find suitable females, we know what happens to them.
They frequent prostitutes. It's, like, rocket science.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:47PM
Polygamy may indeed be causing desperation and aggression.
Mere polygamy can't cause random other people to be desperate and aggressive simply because they can't find a partner; they cause that themselves, if it's caused at all, by reacting to their situation in a particular way. I believe in personal responsibility, so this is entirely the fault of people who react to their situation in such a way that they become aggressive and dangerous.
I see no evidence that polygamy can magically have such an effect, so I do not believe you.
If some men get multiple wives, others have to get none to make the math work, and that leads to a lot of blue-ball rage.
Well, too bad. If people want to get into such relationships, that's up to them. No one is entitled to a relationship, because it requires the consent of all involved.
If the relationship is not consensual, then that is the problem, not the polygamy aspect.
Young men need realistic civilized options or they war and riot, period.
This looks like an insult to men to me. It supposes that men are mindless beasts who will throw a tantrum (war and riot, in this case) if they can't find a relationship. The ones who would do such a thing are defective.
But some people are asexuals. Some people aren't interested in relationships. Many more simply aren't insane enough to war and riot over not being able to find a relationship. I see no need for such generalizations.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 22 2015, @04:01AM
Mere polygamy can't cause random other people to be desperate and aggressive simply because they can't find a partner; they cause that themselves, if it's caused at all, by reacting to their situation in a particular way. I believe in personal responsibility, so this is entirely the fault of people who react to their situation in such a way that they become aggressive and dangerous.
I see no evidence that polygamy can magically have such an effect, so I do not believe you.
How about polygamy unmagically causing that effect because young males routinely and very consistently behave in that "particular way"?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday November 22 2015, @04:34AM
Again, polygamy cannot "cause" that to happen; it's not some sentient being that works towards making that happen, or anything similar. I place the blame entirely on the people who react to their own inability to find a relationship by becoming more aggressive and desperate; it's their decision and/or their body's reaction. So even if I were to believe that many men act that way, I still wouldn't say that polygamy and similar things are the cause.
But I don't believe that that many men are defective; it sounds like misandrist nonsense. That has not yet been established by credible scientific studies (who knows or cares what the social sciences say), to my knowledge.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 22 2015, @08:38AM
Again, polygamy cannot "cause" that to happen; it's not some sentient being that works towards making that happen, or anything similar.
Cause/effect has nothing to do with sentience. Most causes are not sentient.
I place the blame entirely on the people who react to their own inability to find a relationship by becoming more aggressive and desperate
So what? If you leave piles of money sitting around in the public, you'll see an increase in theft, even though it is other peoples' fault for taking the money. You still have a cause/effect relation even though you can blame other people for the cause/effect relation. Blame doesn't change the existence of the cause/effect relationship.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday November 22 2015, @04:10PM
Cause/effect has nothing to do with sentience. Most causes are not sentient.
No, but usually there's at least something there, like a bullet traveling towards someone. But there is no such thing in this case. It's the individuals who choose to react to their situations in certain ways. It's like saying that someone who falsely screams "fire" in a crowded theater 'caused' a panic; that's false, since it was the people who chose to panic. I blame the individuals for their own choices.
It depends on what kind of definition of "cause" you're using, however. Usually it implies blame, especially in situations like this. I take objection to that.
So what?
I am placing the blame where it belongs.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 22 2015, @06:42PM
No, but usually there's at least something there, like a bullet traveling towards someone. But there is no such thing in this case. It's the individuals who choose to react to their situations in certain ways.
Are you trying to disagree? An individual who reacts in a certain way is just like a bullet traveling towards someone when it comes to cause and effect.
It depends on what kind of definition of "cause" you're using, however. Usually it implies blame, especially in situations like this. I take objection to that.
I don't especially since I think blaming someone doesn't make the situation any better.
I am placing the blame where it belongs.
Ok, let's move on to that then. I don't buy that either. We already know that a large majority of young males that find interacting and having relationships with young females to be very important - frequently the most important thing that they should be doing. I don't see why they should be expected to behave nicely when the society is rigged so that the available population of females is kept artificially low. That creates a lot of stress and artificially high pressure to find such interactions and relationships.
It's a bit like expecting young adults to behave when there are no adult role models to guide them by.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday November 22 2015, @07:30PM
Are you trying to disagree? An individual who reacts in a certain way is just like a bullet traveling towards someone when it comes to cause and effect.
You choose how you react to the situation. All I care about is the blame aspect, not this exceedingly broad definition of cause and effect.
I don't especially since I think blaming someone doesn't make the situation any better.
Maybe it doesn't make the situation better, but if you want to punish/rehabilitate someone, you know where to start. If these people take harmful actions, then it is them you must focus on.
We already know that a large majority of young males that find interacting and having relationships with young females to be very important - frequently the most important thing that they should be doing.
You're not entitled to a relationship; it requires the consent of all involved. Can't find a relationship? Too bad.
Again, if there is no consent in the relationship (as if often the case in these countries), the problem lies elsewhere. The problem is not people who merely engage in polygamy and similar types of relationships, since they have that right. I am speaking in general about these types of relationships.
I don't see why they should be expected to behave nicely when the society is rigged so that the available population of females is kept artificially low. That creates a lot of stress and artificially high pressure to find such interactions and relationships.
That depends on how society is "rigged". Is it "rigged" in the sense that these types of relationships are merely allowed (I wouldn't say that that's rigged.), or "rigged" in the system that women have virtually no rights and the ones at the top can forcefully have as many as they please?
Neither justifies acting in a barbaric manner, though the latter would indicate that there exists a serious problem that needs to be solved that has little to do with the polygamy itself.
It's a bit like expecting young adults to behave when there are no adult role models to guide them by.
Yet I would blame them if they didn't. They're still responsible for their own actions.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 22 2015, @09:26PM
You choose how you react to the situation. All I care about is the blame aspect, not this exceedingly broad definition of cause and effect.
What's exceedingly broad about it? It's just cause and effect.
That depends on how society is "rigged". Is it "rigged" in the sense that these types of relationships are merely allowed (I wouldn't say that that's rigged.), or "rigged" in the system that women have virtually no rights and the ones at the top can forcefully have as many as they please?
Neither justifies acting in a barbaric manner, though the latter would indicate that there exists a serious problem that needs to be solved that has little to do with the polygamy itself.
This isn't about justification. It's about systems that may encourage bad/barbaric behavior. You can blame the bad actors, but a system with the wrong incentives can exhibit this sort of problem till the heat death of the universe no matter who or how often you blame.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday November 22 2015, @10:22PM
It's just cause and effect.
It's not very useful to me here because I am talking about blame and personal responsibility.
but a system with the wrong incentives
The wrong incentives being... what? People being allowed to engage in consensual relationships with multiple partners? There's no way to solve that 'problem' unless you are a fan of oppression. The relationships themselves do no harm, so there's no justifiable cause to limit them. We just need to deal with thugs when they rear their ugly heads.
But if you're merely talking about what we can expect when such relationships occur, then that is less of an issue. Still, this sort of thing is typically used to try to justify unjust laws.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 22 2015, @11:22PM
It's not very useful to me here because I am talking about blame and personal responsibility.
And I am speaking of cause and effect. It bugs me when people can dismiss interminable problems that affect innocent people, such as terrorist attacks or collateral damage or institutional law breaking (such as unconstitutional asset forfeiture) from the US War on Drugs on the basis that it is a personal responsibility thing for which some people remain forever irresponsible and we don't need to care, no matter how much harm is done.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday November 22 2015, @11:57PM
institutional law breaking (such as unconstitutional asset forfeiture) from the US War on Drugs
In those cases, government thugs are at fault for enforcing and creating those laws and policies. The individual is at fault for not following those unjust laws, but I think they are good for not doing so. The government thugs are doing the real harm. Everyone is at fault for their own actions, but not everyone's actions are harmful.
(Score: 1) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday November 21 2015, @09:14PM
Has it occurred to Scott yet that nearly all of the horrible things that happen to men are done to them BY OTHER MEN?! This shouldn't even be a gender war; that it is, for him, means he's been successfully divided-and-conquered by the ruling elite.
A non-elite man has far, FAR more in common with a non-elite woman than an elite man. We ought to be natural allies. But noooo, people like Scott here would rather piss and moan about how they're not entitled to our bodies at will rather than stop and think and go "y'know an awful lot of the shit that's dumped on me seems to be coming from just south of a ballbag..."
This is why I always say INT and WIS are two separate dice. Scott seems to have taken one of these as his dump stat.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...