"Even if I say yes, it doesn't mean I mean yes" - Feminists
Options
Comments
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »It is not illogical to refrain from calling a Correlation a causal link when there is no evidence of causation
There are many other variables that correlate and could contribute
It's not illogical to refrain from calling it a causal link. However, you aren't simply refraining. It seems like you're making the statement that it's not a causal link. And, unless you have proof to support that statement, it's no more logical than saying there is a causal link.
Yes it is
Ice cream sales correlate with murder
more ice cream sales in a region = more murder
however we all know ice cream does not cause murder
It's a fallacy to claim causation from correlation
Ummm are you having a comprehension problem or something? I'm not arguing with you that a correlation doesn't automatically mean their is a causal link, so your attempts to prove that are useless. I'm pointing out the fact that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation is not the same thing as correlation means no causation.
That's what I've been saying this whole time
I've not said it's impossible
just that the evidence available available does not indicate causation
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »lol @ Biology being the reason for women being able to choose to abort a baby. It's your biological duty to carry the babies you create. They's why you're given a ? . That's why your body changes to accommodate the baby. That's Biology. "I don't want to carry the baby because it's going to be a burden on me." Isn't a biological reason for women having abortions. Selfishness is.
And lmao @ declaring that if men don't want to have babies they should get a vasectomy and have safe sex, but not holding women to that same standard. If men have to live by those rules, why shouldn't women also?
Basically every time women defend feminism, their arguments break down to "We want equality and fairness when it benefits us and don't really care about it when it doesn't."
Again when it comes to child bearing this isn’t a matter of equality. This is a matter of biology
Not to mention things are already naturally unfair. The woman bears 98.9% of the effort of carrying and bearing a child
On the other hand men and women have equal potential to rise to the level of CEO. Yet women are shut out of these positions essentially because they are women. This is what feminist are fighting to change. You can't protest, legislate away biology. Men cannot carry a child to birth -
AND THERE IT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!The Lonious Monk wrote: »
Basically every time women defend feminism, their arguments break down to "We want equality and fairness when it benefits us and don't really care about it when it doesn't."
Once again, you just completely downplayed the male's roll. You just picked when you wanted the male to be involved. You speak of biology like the man's sperm had nothing to do with the life growing inside the woman. You can't do any of this without the man's help. THAT'S NOT YOUR CHILD, IT'S BOTH HIS AND YOURS!!!! You are just carrying it because that's how it works. This has nothing to do with men being unfair it's nature. You gone start a movement against nature now? LOL at a woman carrying a person with half my D.N.A calling all the shots because she's fulfilling her part of the process.desertrain10 wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »lol @ Biology being the reason for women being able to choose to abort a baby. It's your biological duty to carry the babies you create. They's why you're given a ? . That's why your body changes to accommodate the baby. That's Biology. "I don't want to carry the baby because it's going to be a burden on me." Isn't a biological reason for women having abortions. Selfishness is.
And lmao @ declaring that if men don't want to have babies they should get a vasectomy and have safe sex, but not holding women to that same standard. If men have to live by those rules, why shouldn't women also?
Basically every time women defend feminism, their arguments break down to "We want equality and fairness when it benefits us and don't really care about it when it doesn't."
Again when it comes to child bearing this isn’t a matter of equality. This is a matter of biology
Not to mention things are already naturally unfair. The woman bears 98.9% of the effort of carrying and bearing a child
On the other hand men and women have equal potential to rise to the level of CEO. Yet women are shut out of these positions essentially because they are women. This is what feminist are fighting to change. You can't protest, legislate away biology. Men cannot carry a child to birth
This is why we don't take feminist serious. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything else. You sound selfish and a bit crazy right now. Take the L and keep it moving or just keep making yourselves look like you don't have good sense. Or you can just admit that this movement isn't what it's all cracked up to be.
-
Women, always wanting equal rights till you swing back on them.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »It is not illogical to refrain from calling a Correlation a causal link when there is no evidence of causation
There are many other variables that correlate and could contribute
It's not illogical to refrain from calling it a causal link. However, you aren't simply refraining. It seems like you're making the statement that it's not a causal link. And, unless you have proof to support that statement, it's no more logical than saying there is a causal link.
Yes it is
Ice cream sales correlate with murder
more ice cream sales in a region = more murder
however we all know ice cream does not cause murder
It's a fallacy to claim causation from correlation
Ummm are you having a comprehension problem or something? I'm not arguing with you that a correlation doesn't automatically mean their is a causal link, so your attempts to prove that are useless. I'm pointing out the fact that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation is not the same thing as correlation means no causation.
That's what I've been saying this whole time
I've not said it's impossible
just that the evidence available available does not indicate causation
Maybe I misunderstood you, but I could have sworn that you said there was no causation earlier. And that's what I was responding to, but I could have just got what you said wrong.desertrain10 wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »lol @ Biology being the reason for women being able to choose to abort a baby. It's your biological duty to carry the babies you create. They's why you're given a ? . That's why your body changes to accommodate the baby. That's Biology. "I don't want to carry the baby because it's going to be a burden on me." Isn't a biological reason for women having abortions. Selfishness is.
And lmao @ declaring that if men don't want to have babies they should get a vasectomy and have safe sex, but not holding women to that same standard. If men have to live by those rules, why shouldn't women also?
Basically every time women defend feminism, their arguments break down to "We want equality and fairness when it benefits us and don't really care about it when it doesn't."
Again when it comes to child bearing this isn’t a matter of equality. This is a matter of biology
Not to mention things are already naturally unfair. The woman bears 98.9% of the effort of carrying and bearing a child
On the other hand men and women have equal potential to rise to the level of CEO. Yet women are shut out of these positions essentially because they are women. This is what feminist are fighting to change. You can't protest, legislate away biology. Men cannot carry a child to birth
Again, the biology is that both men and women make an equal genetic contribution to the creation of the child. The biology is that the female's body is designed to adapt to and nurture children. The biology is that sex exists for procreation and anytime you have sex you're taking the chance that you will create a baby. That's biology. This idea that women should have all the say in whether a child is born or not because they have to carry the baby is not biology. It's just selfishness. If you want to talk about biology, then once you're pregnant its your biological responsibility to carry that child. There is no intrinsic aspect of biology that supports going to a doctor and letting him/her ? the developing child. That's just ? women come up with to absolve themselves from their responsibilities. So stop talking about biology because biology isn't to blame for your ridiculously flawed reasoning. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
Well you're not exactly any better. You're making that absolute statement that it's not causal, and unless I missed it, I don't see where you provided any information that supports. So as it stands we have information that supports a link between the rise of feminism and a lot of bad ? happening, and nothing that supports or disputes the idea that the rise of feminism caused all that bad ? . That's still not a picture that looks good for feminism.
Desegregation correlates too
Guess that also cause it
This is an absolutely meaningless post because I didn't say that feminism caused the problems. I just said there is a link and that you shouldn't be acting so high and mighty about your use of logic since you're making a similar logical mistake i.e., assuming that feminism isn't the cause with nothing to prove that.
It is not illogical to refrain from calling a Correlation a causal link when there is no evidence of causation
There are many other variables that correlate and could contribute
If the femininst helped changed the laws and public outlook how is there no evidence of causation.The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
Well you're not exactly any better. You're making that absolute statement that it's not causal, and unless I missed it, I don't see where you provided any information that supports. So as it stands we have information that supports a link between the rise of feminism and a lot of bad ? happening, and nothing that supports or disputes the idea that the rise of feminism caused all that bad ? . That's still not a picture that looks good for feminism.
Desegregation correlates too
Guess that also cause it
This is an absolutely meaningless post because I didn't say that feminism caused the problems. I just said there is a link and that you shouldn't be acting so high and mighty about your use of logic since you're making a similar logical mistake i.e., assuming that feminism isn't the cause with nothing to prove that.
It is not illogical to refrain from calling a Correlation a causal link when there is no evidence of causation
There are many other variables that correlate and could contribute
If the femininst helped changed the laws and public outlook how is there no evidence of causation.
Because we're not looking at it alone
we don't have an experiment showing that one variable alone (feminism) is the cause of unequal rulings in family court
Desertrain claims patriarchy and benevolent sexism caused it
but she does not have the experiment showing this is the case either
it's like you're both saying that A existed around the time of B so it caused it
There's no evidence saying that feminism did not contribute and I would have to be fairly ignorant to think it did not, particularly in the evolution of abortion laws, but there are other factors that could have played a role
Evolutionary theory claims that men have a natural desire to protect women, so this could easily be a factor too when considering court rulings where women were favored
There is also a lot of evidence from psychology and sociology indicating that humans favor underdogs, so this could be a factor
America has become more liberal in general, this also correlates
There are too many variables
sophistry you are a master of it. evolutionary theory as a factor is ? men have been murdering women forever so clearly men don't have a natural desire to protect women. feminist fighting to change laws had a direct effect on society thus there is a direct cause. other factors could have played a role but i see no proof that they did i have more proof than you do.
More people die of disease and ? failure than murder
murder is not the norm
your claim is contradicted by societies that deem hitting women worse than hitting men and keep women out of the military
Your evidence is that you said there is a direct cause
many other things happened in that time
it is not a vacuum
Your evidence is the same kind as DesertTrain's
if you're right then she must be too
but this is unlikely because they're directly contradictory -
BARON_$AMEDI wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »BARON_$AMEDI wrote: »
1. the one when those beautiful educated nubian queens was on. Talking about it's hard to find a black man that's on their same level(or above) in society. If they do find one they are either ? , intimidated by a successful woman, don't mess with sistas, or playas who don't want to get married etc etc. Women don't really need men anymore, we're taking over, black men don't know how to treat black women but white men do blah blah blah OH LOOK, IT'S STEVE HARVY!!. (You know witch one i'm talking about.)desertrain10 wrote: »BARON_$AMEDI wrote: »
1. You have to talk to NBC and the corporate media about that...and what television specials are u referring to?
2. Why not
3. Sure...Though I feel some of your grievance conflict with my own considering I believe a woman should have the right to terminate an early pregnancy without the consent of the father. But we do share a common foe: patriarchy
2. I've often wondered why there's never any "straight" men involved with the movement. Plenty of guys(such as myself) think women getting paid less is beyond stupid amongst other things. I guess female empowerment can only be given by other women...... ... .. I guess fathers, brothers, or strong male figures in women's lives are not enough empowerment.
3. Wow, so what happened to the equality here? So how do you feel about a father choosing not to take care of the child or pay child support? It's weird how the "it takes two to make a baby" argument goes out the window depending on how the woman feels at the time.
I was dropping playful positive R.N.S in my other post. But I stand by my view on feminist logic. It's really about how women "feel" at a certain time and moment. Here's just a few examples:
- A guy you find attractive flirts with you(to any degree) it's cool. Ugly dude does this it will turn into harassment. He's thirsty, creepy, gets no ? etc etc.
- A man calls a woman who is doing hoish/slutty things all the time a ? /? , he's a woman hater. A woman does this same thing even if the woman hasn't really showed these qualities and nothing is said(a woman will call another woman a ? , ? , nasty, and a ? before a man will). But here goes the funny part. If a woman doesn't like this particular woman then those men aren't woman bashers/haters all of a sudden.
- Destiny's child makes a video with buff oiled up half naked gyrating men, not one complaint. A male does this with females in his video. He's a nasty misogynists who doesn't respect women.
- A man makes a song about no good women and how he craps on them. Depending on if the female likes the song/artist or not will decide it's fate as women bashing or "dats my song!!!!!!"(starts twerking).
3. I would always consult with the father about having or not having an abortion. However we aren’t starting out on a level playing field, so the equality argument is a red herring. U don’t get to call equal rights just because you think they apply. Biology trumps the issue
Yes both men and women contribute to the biology of the fetus, however fact remains the choice to have or not to have a child significantly affects the biology of a woman not the man, therefore she should be able to make that decision for herself
Equal rights consist of things like all genders being able to vote, because everyone has the capacity to vote, and should be able to vote. By not allowing a certain segment of society to vote, we are discriminating against them
When a man can create and carry a child in his own ? , come back to me about equal rights for men
Furthermore, u speak as if men are powerless in regard to impregnating women, and therefore need state intervention in order to remedy power imbalances, which is the furthest thing from the truth... arguing for men’s “right” to abortion and beyond, is to absolve men of all responsibility from necessary negotiation regarding sexual practices
If you don't want to pay child support, get a vasectomy, practice safe sex
As far as the rest goes ...men and women appreciating the opposite sex is a natural thing. The problem is the matter and scale which women are objectified
But yes both sides have done and said some contradictory things
LOL!!!!!!!!!! and this is a prime example of why I roll my eyes at most(not all) of the things that come out of feminist mouths. This whole post is a contradiction to the movement and lacks a whole lot of logic. It does nothing more than prove what I said about the movement. most of it(not all) Is basically based on how y'all feel at the moment.
Like I said, equality truly is not the theme of the movement. You pulling the biology card was beyond desperate. You seriously just cut the man out of the picture like he doesn't matter anymore. But when the baby is born(now away from the female body) the woman is still in control. Now if the man decides to not have anything to do with the child it's a cop out and he's running from responsibility? The woman is in complete control of the whole situation they equally created. Once again, it's how y'all feel in a situation. And lets not even go there with the "biology" argument, you really don't want to do that. This level of objectification proves it's about how y'all feel once again. You really messed up with the line I highlighted in red when you said "when a man can create a child". LOL a woman can't create a child on her own and neither can a man. man + woman = life and we both have a role to play. Just because you carry "our" child doesn't put you in charge of "our" situation. In a sense you are devaluing the mans worth while focusing on the woman's. That aint trying to be equal with men at all.
And with this, I rest my case. You have a blessed positive day you beautiful woman you.
shot out to @Jono I see you playa, I see you. PLAYA!!!! PLAYA!!!!
Desperate? Lol
I'm just stating the obvious bruh
Anyways ur beef isn't with feminism but with people, women in general -
Women who aren't feminist don't tend to say selfish things like this. I don't have a problem with women at all. I have a problem with ? logic that feminist always seem to be spewing out. Don't know where you get the implication that I have a problem with women in general. I've told men on here that they were using ? logic a bunch of times before. How come I don't have a problem with men "in general"?desertrain10 wrote: »BARON_$AMEDI wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »BARON_$AMEDI wrote: »
1. the one when those beautiful educated nubian queens was on. Talking about it's hard to find a black man that's on their same level(or above) in society. If they do find one they are either ? , intimidated by a successful woman, don't mess with sistas, or playas who don't want to get married etc etc. Women don't really need men anymore, we're taking over, black men don't know how to treat black women but white men do blah blah blah OH LOOK, IT'S STEVE HARVY!!. (You know witch one i'm talking about.)desertrain10 wrote: »BARON_$AMEDI wrote: »
1. You have to talk to NBC and the corporate media about that...and what television specials are u referring to?
2. Why not
3. Sure...Though I feel some of your grievance conflict with my own considering I believe a woman should have the right to terminate an early pregnancy without the consent of the father. But we do share a common foe: patriarchy
2. I've often wondered why there's never any "straight" men involved with the movement. Plenty of guys(such as myself) think women getting paid less is beyond stupid amongst other things. I guess female empowerment can only be given by other women...... ... .. I guess fathers, brothers, or strong male figures in women's lives are not enough empowerment.
3. Wow, so what happened to the equality here? So how do you feel about a father choosing not to take care of the child or pay child support? It's weird how the "it takes two to make a baby" argument goes out the window depending on how the woman feels at the time.
I was dropping playful positive R.N.S in my other post. But I stand by my view on feminist logic. It's really about how women "feel" at a certain time and moment. Here's just a few examples:
- A guy you find attractive flirts with you(to any degree) it's cool. Ugly dude does this it will turn into harassment. He's thirsty, creepy, gets no ? etc etc.
- A man calls a woman who is doing hoish/slutty things all the time a ? /? , he's a woman hater. A woman does this same thing even if the woman hasn't really showed these qualities and nothing is said(a woman will call another woman a ? , ? , nasty, and a ? before a man will). But here goes the funny part. If a woman doesn't like this particular woman then those men aren't woman bashers/haters all of a sudden.
- Destiny's child makes a video with buff oiled up half naked gyrating men, not one complaint. A male does this with females in his video. He's a nasty misogynists who doesn't respect women.
- A man makes a song about no good women and how he craps on them. Depending on if the female likes the song/artist or not will decide it's fate as women bashing or "dats my song!!!!!!"(starts twerking).
3. I would always consult with the father about having or not having an abortion. However we aren’t starting out on a level playing field, so the equality argument is a red herring. U don’t get to call equal rights just because you think they apply. Biology trumps the issue
Yes both men and women contribute to the biology of the fetus, however fact remains the choice to have or not to have a child significantly affects the biology of a woman not the man, therefore she should be able to make that decision for herself
Equal rights consist of things like all genders being able to vote, because everyone has the capacity to vote, and should be able to vote. By not allowing a certain segment of society to vote, we are discriminating against them
When a man can create and carry a child in his own ? , come back to me about equal rights for men
Furthermore, u speak as if men are powerless in regard to impregnating women, and therefore need state intervention in order to remedy power imbalances, which is the furthest thing from the truth... arguing for men’s “right” to abortion and beyond, is to absolve men of all responsibility from necessary negotiation regarding sexual practices
If you don't want to pay child support, get a vasectomy, practice safe sex
As far as the rest goes ...men and women appreciating the opposite sex is a natural thing. The problem is the matter and scale which women are objectified
But yes both sides have done and said some contradictory things
LOL!!!!!!!!!! and this is a prime example of why I roll my eyes at most(not all) of the things that come out of feminist mouths. This whole post is a contradiction to the movement and lacks a whole lot of logic. It does nothing more than prove what I said about the movement. most of it(not all) Is basically based on how y'all feel at the moment.
Like I said, equality truly is not the theme of the movement. You pulling the biology card was beyond desperate. You seriously just cut the man out of the picture like he doesn't matter anymore. But when the baby is born(now away from the female body) the woman is still in control. Now if the man decides to not have anything to do with the child it's a cop out and he's running from responsibility? The woman is in complete control of the whole situation they equally created. Once again, it's how y'all feel in a situation. And lets not even go there with the "biology" argument, you really don't want to do that. This level of objectification proves it's about how y'all feel once again. You really messed up with the line I highlighted in red when you said "when a man can create a child". LOL a woman can't create a child on her own and neither can a man. man + woman = life and we both have a role to play. Just because you carry "our" child doesn't put you in charge of "our" situation. In a sense you are devaluing the mans worth while focusing on the woman's. That aint trying to be equal with men at all.
And with this, I rest my case. You have a blessed positive day you beautiful woman you.
shot out to @Jono I see you playa, I see you. PLAYA!!!! PLAYA!!!!
Desperate? Lol
I'm just stating the obvious bruh
Anyways ur beef isn't with feminism but with people, women in general
Let me flip the situation around just to show your ? logic. So sense you don't feel the man should have any say in a life he helped create. I guess you have a problem with men in general?
You proved my point once again with this reply.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »It is not illogical to refrain from calling a Correlation a causal link when there is no evidence of causation
There are many other variables that correlate and could contribute
It's not illogical to refrain from calling it a causal link. However, you aren't simply refraining. It seems like you're making the statement that it's not a causal link. And, unless you have proof to support that statement, it's no more logical than saying there is a causal link.
Yes it is
Ice cream sales correlate with murder
more ice cream sales in a region = more murder
however we all know ice cream does not cause murder
It's a fallacy to claim causation from correlation
Ummm are you having a comprehension problem or something? I'm not arguing with you that a correlation doesn't automatically mean their is a causal link, so your attempts to prove that are useless. I'm pointing out the fact that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation is not the same thing as correlation means no causation.
That's what I've been saying this whole time
I've not said it's impossible
just that the evidence available available does not indicate causation
Maybe I misunderstood you, but I could have sworn that you said there was no causation earlier. And that's what I was responding to, but I could have just got what you said wrong.desertrain10 wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »lol @ Biology being the reason for women being able to choose to abort a baby. It's your biological duty to carry the babies you create. They's why you're given a ? . That's why your body changes to accommodate the baby. That's Biology. "I don't want to carry the baby because it's going to be a burden on me." Isn't a biological reason for women having abortions. Selfishness is.
And lmao @ declaring that if men don't want to have babies they should get a vasectomy and have safe sex, but not holding women to that same standard. If men have to live by those rules, why shouldn't women also?
Basically every time women defend feminism, their arguments break down to "We want equality and fairness when it benefits us and don't really care about it when it doesn't."
Again when it comes to child bearing this isn’t a matter of equality. This is a matter of biology
Not to mention things are already naturally unfair. The woman bears 98.9% of the effort of carrying and bearing a child
On the other hand men and women have equal potential to rise to the level of CEO. Yet women are shut out of these positions essentially because they are women. This is what feminist are fighting to change. You can't protest, legislate away biology. Men cannot carry a child to birth
Again, the biology is that both men and women make an equal genetic contribution to the creation of the child. The biology is that the female's body is designed to adapt to and nurture children. The biology is that sex exists for procreation and anytime you have sex you're taking the chance that you will create a baby. That's biology. This idea that women should have all the say in whether a child is born or not because they have to carry the baby is not biology. It's just selfishness. If you want to talk about biology, then once you're pregnant its your biological responsibility to carry that child. There is no intrinsic aspect of biology that supports going to a doctor and letting him/her ? the developing child. That's just ? women come up with to absolve themselves from their responsibilities. So stop talking about biology because biology isn't to blame for your ridiculously flawed reasoning.
Whether or not it's selfish is besides the point
Morals aside one could even argue a legal abortion is no different than wearing a condom...the desired result is the same
Again...
Yes both men and women contribute to the biology of the fetus, however fact remains the choice to have or not to have a child significantly affects the biology of a woman not the man, therefore she should be able to make that decision for herself
Pregnancy is life threatening, life altering experience
Equal rights consist of things like all genders being able to vote, because everyone both men and women have the CAPACITY to vote, and should be able to vote. By not allowing a certain segment of society to vote, we are discriminating against them
When a man can create and carry a child in his own ? , come back to me about equal rights for men
-
I see the sexism even in here that feminists complain about
I see poor @desertrain10 getting "? " unwillingly from all sides with logic haha
women have just as much opportunity to become CEO as other minorities do..........so feminism is really unnecessary on that note when civil rights movements already exist
especially considering that black women as not discriminated against socially as much as black men already are
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
Well you're not exactly any better. You're making that absolute statement that it's not causal, and unless I missed it, I don't see where you provided any information that supports. So as it stands we have information that supports a link between the rise of feminism and a lot of bad ? happening, and nothing that supports or disputes the idea that the rise of feminism caused all that bad ? . That's still not a picture that looks good for feminism.
Desegregation correlates too
Guess that also cause it
This is an absolutely meaningless post because I didn't say that feminism caused the problems. I just said there is a link and that you shouldn't be acting so high and mighty about your use of logic since you're making a similar logical mistake i.e., assuming that feminism isn't the cause with nothing to prove that.
It is not illogical to refrain from calling a Correlation a causal link when there is no evidence of causation
There are many other variables that correlate and could contribute
If the femininst helped changed the laws and public outlook how is there no evidence of causation.The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
Well you're not exactly any better. You're making that absolute statement that it's not causal, and unless I missed it, I don't see where you provided any information that supports. So as it stands we have information that supports a link between the rise of feminism and a lot of bad ? happening, and nothing that supports or disputes the idea that the rise of feminism caused all that bad ? . That's still not a picture that looks good for feminism.
Desegregation correlates too
Guess that also cause it
This is an absolutely meaningless post because I didn't say that feminism caused the problems. I just said there is a link and that you shouldn't be acting so high and mighty about your use of logic since you're making a similar logical mistake i.e., assuming that feminism isn't the cause with nothing to prove that.
It is not illogical to refrain from calling a Correlation a causal link when there is no evidence of causation
There are many other variables that correlate and could contribute
If the femininst helped changed the laws and public outlook how is there no evidence of causation.
Because we're not looking at it alone
we don't have an experiment showing that one variable alone (feminism) is the cause of unequal rulings in family court
Desertrain claims patriarchy and benevolent sexism caused it
but she does not have the experiment showing this is the case either
it's like you're both saying that A existed around the time of B so it caused it
There's no evidence saying that feminism did not contribute and I would have to be fairly ignorant to think it did not, particularly in the evolution of abortion laws, but there are other factors that could have played a role
Evolutionary theory claims that men have a natural desire to protect women, so this could easily be a factor too when considering court rulings where women were favored
There is also a lot of evidence from psychology and sociology indicating that humans favor underdogs, so this could be a factor
America has become more liberal in general, this also correlates
There are too many variables
sophistry you are a master of it. evolutionary theory as a factor is ? men have been murdering women forever so clearly men don't have a natural desire to protect women. feminist fighting to change laws had a direct effect on society thus there is a direct cause. other factors could have played a role but i see no proof that they did i have more proof than you do.
More people die of disease and ? failure than murder
murder is not the norm
your claim is contradicted by societies that deem hitting women worse than hitting men and keep women out of the military
Your evidence is that you said there is a direct cause
many other things happened in that time
it is not a vacuum
Your evidence is the same kind as DesertTrain's
if you're right then she must be too
but this is unlikely because they're directly contradictory
In this society and most others men have not displayed some natural desire to protect women i don't care about some tribe in the bush they are outliers and i was just using murder as the most extreme example of men doing the exact opposite of what you claimed. women were kept out of the military as a matter of practicality and based on what was good for the society if was not because men felt the need to protect them. Hitting a woman is wrong for the same reason hitting a man weaker than you is.
Nothing may exist in a vacuum but you have no proof that any of these things have a direct effect in causing the problems that we are talking about. i however do have proof that feminist has effected society deserttrain and me both agree that feminism has affected society she thinks it's been positive i think it has been negative. There is no contradiction it's a matter of interpretation. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
Well you're not exactly any better. You're making that absolute statement that it's not causal, and unless I missed it, I don't see where you provided any information that supports. So as it stands we have information that supports a link between the rise of feminism and a lot of bad ? happening, and nothing that supports or disputes the idea that the rise of feminism caused all that bad ? . That's still not a picture that looks good for feminism.
Desegregation correlates too
Guess that also cause it
This is an absolutely meaningless post because I didn't say that feminism caused the problems. I just said there is a link and that you shouldn't be acting so high and mighty about your use of logic since you're making a similar logical mistake i.e., assuming that feminism isn't the cause with nothing to prove that.
It is not illogical to refrain from calling a Correlation a causal link when there is no evidence of causation
There are many other variables that correlate and could contribute
If the femininst helped changed the laws and public outlook how is there no evidence of causation.The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
Well you're not exactly any better. You're making that absolute statement that it's not causal, and unless I missed it, I don't see where you provided any information that supports. So as it stands we have information that supports a link between the rise of feminism and a lot of bad ? happening, and nothing that supports or disputes the idea that the rise of feminism caused all that bad ? . That's still not a picture that looks good for feminism.
Desegregation correlates too
Guess that also cause it
This is an absolutely meaningless post because I didn't say that feminism caused the problems. I just said there is a link and that you shouldn't be acting so high and mighty about your use of logic since you're making a similar logical mistake i.e., assuming that feminism isn't the cause with nothing to prove that.
It is not illogical to refrain from calling a Correlation a causal link when there is no evidence of causation
There are many other variables that correlate and could contribute
If the femininst helped changed the laws and public outlook how is there no evidence of causation.
Because we're not looking at it alone
we don't have an experiment showing that one variable alone (feminism) is the cause of unequal rulings in family court
Desertrain claims patriarchy and benevolent sexism caused it
but she does not have the experiment showing this is the case either
it's like you're both saying that A existed around the time of B so it caused it
There's no evidence saying that feminism did not contribute and I would have to be fairly ignorant to think it did not, particularly in the evolution of abortion laws, but there are other factors that could have played a role
Evolutionary theory claims that men have a natural desire to protect women, so this could easily be a factor too when considering court rulings where women were favored
There is also a lot of evidence from psychology and sociology indicating that humans favor underdogs, so this could be a factor
America has become more liberal in general, this also correlates
There are too many variables
sophistry you are a master of it. evolutionary theory as a factor is ? men have been murdering women forever so clearly men don't have a natural desire to protect women. feminist fighting to change laws had a direct effect on society thus there is a direct cause. other factors could have played a role but i see no proof that they did i have more proof than you do.
More people die of disease and ? failure than murder
murder is not the norm
your claim is contradicted by societies that deem hitting women worse than hitting men and keep women out of the military
Your evidence is that you said there is a direct cause
many other things happened in that time
it is not a vacuum
Your evidence is the same kind as DesertTrain's
if you're right then she must be too
but this is unlikely because they're directly contradictory
In this society and most others men have not displayed some natural desire to protect women i don't care about some tribe in the bush they are outliers and i was just using murder as the most extreme example of men doing the exact opposite of what you claimed. women were kept out of the military as a matter of practicality and based on what was good for the society if was not because men felt the need to protect them. Hitting a woman is wrong for the same reason hitting a man weaker than you is.
Nothing may exist in a vacuum but you have no proof that any of these things have a direct effect in causing the problems that we are talking about. i however do have proof that feminist has effected society deserttrain and me both agree that feminism has affected society she thinks it's been positive i think it has been negative. There is no contradiction it's a matter of interpretation.
your claim was that the court rulings that favor women are due to feminism
she says patriarchy
that's not agreement
one is beneficial to women and one is beneficial to men
the two concepts are in direct opposition to each other
your proof is just you saying that feminism happened at the same time
That does not prove it is more causal than other variables mentioned -
desertrain10 wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »It is not illogical to refrain from calling a Correlation a causal link when there is no evidence of causation
There are many other variables that correlate and could contribute
It's not illogical to refrain from calling it a causal link. However, you aren't simply refraining. It seems like you're making the statement that it's not a causal link. And, unless you have proof to support that statement, it's no more logical than saying there is a causal link.
Yes it is
Ice cream sales correlate with murder
more ice cream sales in a region = more murder
however we all know ice cream does not cause murder
It's a fallacy to claim causation from correlation
Ummm are you having a comprehension problem or something? I'm not arguing with you that a correlation doesn't automatically mean their is a causal link, so your attempts to prove that are useless. I'm pointing out the fact that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation is not the same thing as correlation means no causation.
That's what I've been saying this whole time
I've not said it's impossible
just that the evidence available available does not indicate causation
Maybe I misunderstood you, but I could have sworn that you said there was no causation earlier. And that's what I was responding to, but I could have just got what you said wrong.desertrain10 wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »lol @ Biology being the reason for women being able to choose to abort a baby. It's your biological duty to carry the babies you create. They's why you're given a ? . That's why your body changes to accommodate the baby. That's Biology. "I don't want to carry the baby because it's going to be a burden on me." Isn't a biological reason for women having abortions. Selfishness is.
And lmao @ declaring that if men don't want to have babies they should get a vasectomy and have safe sex, but not holding women to that same standard. If men have to live by those rules, why shouldn't women also?
Basically every time women defend feminism, their arguments break down to "We want equality and fairness when it benefits us and don't really care about it when it doesn't."
Again when it comes to child bearing this isn’t a matter of equality. This is a matter of biology
Not to mention things are already naturally unfair. The woman bears 98.9% of the effort of carrying and bearing a child
On the other hand men and women have equal potential to rise to the level of CEO. Yet women are shut out of these positions essentially because they are women. This is what feminist are fighting to change. You can't protest, legislate away biology. Men cannot carry a child to birth
Again, the biology is that both men and women make an equal genetic contribution to the creation of the child. The biology is that the female's body is designed to adapt to and nurture children. The biology is that sex exists for procreation and anytime you have sex you're taking the chance that you will create a baby. That's biology. This idea that women should have all the say in whether a child is born or not because they have to carry the baby is not biology. It's just selfishness. If you want to talk about biology, then once you're pregnant its your biological responsibility to carry that child. There is no intrinsic aspect of biology that supports going to a doctor and letting him/her ? the developing child. That's just ? women come up with to absolve themselves from their responsibilities. So stop talking about biology because biology isn't to blame for your ridiculously flawed reasoning.
Whether or not it's selfish is besides the point
Again...
Yes both men and women contribute to the biology of the fetus, however fact remains the choice to have or not to have a child significantly affects the biology of a woman not the man, therefore she should be able to make that decision for herself
Pregnancy is life threatening, life altering experience
When a man can create and carry a child in his own ? , come back to me about equal rights for menAgain...
The fact remains that grown ass females with some sense know what their role is in the union. Therefore that doesn't give you the sole right to decide anything without the consent of the other half of the union. Are we talking about a sperm donor or a man the woman made an agreement to have a child with? SMH good luck at convincing a father that he should just stay out of the decision to ? his child or not because the woman changed her mind.........
Pregnancy "COULD" be life threatening but it usually isn't. People are getting pregnant left and right and very few are life threatening. Yes it is life altering but guess what? That's what you should think about as a grown ass woman before you began the "NATURAL" process of pregnancy. You are downplaying women's common sense and making it seem like they're naive children or something
Here we go again, this is beyond ? !!!! Men have sperm(life) and woman have a ? (incubator of life). Your natural role in the union DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE SOLE RIGHT TO DO AS YOU PLEASE!! You aint special because you are doing what you're designed to do. If you don't FEEL like you should involve the other half of the child because you not FEELING the natural process anymore. Well boo hoo! IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU ANYMORE!!!! It's you, the life inside you, and the person who put it there. Bring up this selfish immature bird logic when women can create life without sperm. You are just digging a deeper hole for the movement.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
Well you're not exactly any better. You're making that absolute statement that it's not causal, and unless I missed it, I don't see where you provided any information that supports. So as it stands we have information that supports a link between the rise of feminism and a lot of bad ? happening, and nothing that supports or disputes the idea that the rise of feminism caused all that bad ? . That's still not a picture that looks good for feminism.
Desegregation correlates too
Guess that also cause it
This is an absolutely meaningless post because I didn't say that feminism caused the problems. I just said there is a link and that you shouldn't be acting so high and mighty about your use of logic since you're making a similar logical mistake i.e., assuming that feminism isn't the cause with nothing to prove that.
It is not illogical to refrain from calling a Correlation a causal link when there is no evidence of causation
There are many other variables that correlate and could contribute
If the femininst helped changed the laws and public outlook how is there no evidence of causation.The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
Well you're not exactly any better. You're making that absolute statement that it's not causal, and unless I missed it, I don't see where you provided any information that supports. So as it stands we have information that supports a link between the rise of feminism and a lot of bad ? happening, and nothing that supports or disputes the idea that the rise of feminism caused all that bad ? . That's still not a picture that looks good for feminism.
Desegregation correlates too
Guess that also cause it
This is an absolutely meaningless post because I didn't say that feminism caused the problems. I just said there is a link and that you shouldn't be acting so high and mighty about your use of logic since you're making a similar logical mistake i.e., assuming that feminism isn't the cause with nothing to prove that.
It is not illogical to refrain from calling a Correlation a causal link when there is no evidence of causation
There are many other variables that correlate and could contribute
If the femininst helped changed the laws and public outlook how is there no evidence of causation.
Because we're not looking at it alone
we don't have an experiment showing that one variable alone (feminism) is the cause of unequal rulings in family court
Desertrain claims patriarchy and benevolent sexism caused it
but she does not have the experiment showing this is the case either
it's like you're both saying that A existed around the time of B so it caused it
There's no evidence saying that feminism did not contribute and I would have to be fairly ignorant to think it did not, particularly in the evolution of abortion laws, but there are other factors that could have played a role
Evolutionary theory claims that men have a natural desire to protect women, so this could easily be a factor too when considering court rulings where women were favored
There is also a lot of evidence from psychology and sociology indicating that humans favor underdogs, so this could be a factor
America has become more liberal in general, this also correlates
There are too many variables
sophistry you are a master of it. evolutionary theory as a factor is ? men have been murdering women forever so clearly men don't have a natural desire to protect women. feminist fighting to change laws had a direct effect on society thus there is a direct cause. other factors could have played a role but i see no proof that they did i have more proof than you do.
More people die of disease and ? failure than murder
murder is not the norm
your claim is contradicted by societies that deem hitting women worse than hitting men and keep women out of the military
Your evidence is that you said there is a direct cause
many other things happened in that time
it is not a vacuum
Your evidence is the same kind as DesertTrain's
if you're right then she must be too
but this is unlikely because they're directly contradictory
In this society and most others men have not displayed some natural desire to protect women i don't care about some tribe in the bush they are outliers and i was just using murder as the most extreme example of men doing the exact opposite of what you claimed. women were kept out of the military as a matter of practicality and based on what was good for the society if was not because men felt the need to protect them. Hitting a woman is wrong for the same reason hitting a man weaker than you is.
Nothing may exist in a vacuum but you have no proof that any of these things have a direct effect in causing the problems that we are talking about. i however do have proof that feminist has effected society deserttrain and me both agree that feminism has affected society she thinks it's been positive i think it has been negative. There is no contradiction it's a matter of interpretation.
your claim was that the court rulings that favor women are due to feminism
she says patriarchy
that's not agreement
one is beneficial to women and one is beneficial to men
the two concepts are in direct opposition to each other
your proof is just you saying that feminism happened at the same time
That does not prove it is more causal than other variables mentioned
My proof is that femininst actually helped get laws changed other things happened around the same time as the femininst movement gained traction, but so the ? what i can draw a direct connection between feminism and changes and you cannot do the same for any of those other factors.
The bolded is not really true and is also a matter of opinion, My claim is that feminism has negatively altered society i used court ruling as a symptom of that. unless you can come up with a serious rebuttal to my points i am done with you .saying that their could have been other factors with out explaining how these other factors are more likely than feminism to have influenced the creation of our current problems
is useless. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
Well you're not exactly any better. You're making that absolute statement that it's not causal, and unless I missed it, I don't see where you provided any information that supports. So as it stands we have information that supports a link between the rise of feminism and a lot of bad ? happening, and nothing that supports or disputes the idea that the rise of feminism caused all that bad ? . That's still not a picture that looks good for feminism.
Desegregation correlates too
Guess that also cause it
This is an absolutely meaningless post because I didn't say that feminism caused the problems. I just said there is a link and that you shouldn't be acting so high and mighty about your use of logic since you're making a similar logical mistake i.e., assuming that feminism isn't the cause with nothing to prove that.
It is not illogical to refrain from calling a Correlation a causal link when there is no evidence of causation
There are many other variables that correlate and could contribute
If the femininst helped changed the laws and public outlook how is there no evidence of causation.The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
Well you're not exactly any better. You're making that absolute statement that it's not causal, and unless I missed it, I don't see where you provided any information that supports. So as it stands we have information that supports a link between the rise of feminism and a lot of bad ? happening, and nothing that supports or disputes the idea that the rise of feminism caused all that bad ? . That's still not a picture that looks good for feminism.
Desegregation correlates too
Guess that also cause it
This is an absolutely meaningless post because I didn't say that feminism caused the problems. I just said there is a link and that you shouldn't be acting so high and mighty about your use of logic since you're making a similar logical mistake i.e., assuming that feminism isn't the cause with nothing to prove that.
It is not illogical to refrain from calling a Correlation a causal link when there is no evidence of causation
There are many other variables that correlate and could contribute
If the femininst helped changed the laws and public outlook how is there no evidence of causation.
Because we're not looking at it alone
we don't have an experiment showing that one variable alone (feminism) is the cause of unequal rulings in family court
Desertrain claims patriarchy and benevolent sexism caused it
but she does not have the experiment showing this is the case either
it's like you're both saying that A existed around the time of B so it caused it
There's no evidence saying that feminism did not contribute and I would have to be fairly ignorant to think it did not, particularly in the evolution of abortion laws, but there are other factors that could have played a role
Evolutionary theory claims that men have a natural desire to protect women, so this could easily be a factor too when considering court rulings where women were favored
There is also a lot of evidence from psychology and sociology indicating that humans favor underdogs, so this could be a factor
America has become more liberal in general, this also correlates
There are too many variables
sophistry you are a master of it. evolutionary theory as a factor is ? men have been murdering women forever so clearly men don't have a natural desire to protect women. feminist fighting to change laws had a direct effect on society thus there is a direct cause. other factors could have played a role but i see no proof that they did i have more proof than you do.
More people die of disease and ? failure than murder
murder is not the norm
your claim is contradicted by societies that deem hitting women worse than hitting men and keep women out of the military
Your evidence is that you said there is a direct cause
many other things happened in that time
it is not a vacuum
Your evidence is the same kind as DesertTrain's
if you're right then she must be too
but this is unlikely because they're directly contradictory
In this society and most others men have not displayed some natural desire to protect women i don't care about some tribe in the bush they are outliers and i was just using murder as the most extreme example of men doing the exact opposite of what you claimed. women were kept out of the military as a matter of practicality and based on what was good for the society if was not because men felt the need to protect them. Hitting a woman is wrong for the same reason hitting a man weaker than you is.
Nothing may exist in a vacuum but you have no proof that any of these things have a direct effect in causing the problems that we are talking about. i however do have proof that feminist has effected society deserttrain and me both agree that feminism has affected society she thinks it's been positive i think it has been negative. There is no contradiction it's a matter of interpretation.
your claim was that the court rulings that favor women are due to feminism
she says patriarchy
that's not agreement
one is beneficial to women and one is beneficial to men
the two concepts are in direct opposition to each other
your proof is just you saying that feminism happened at the same time
That does not prove it is more causal than other variables mentioned
My proof is that femininst actually helped get laws changed other things happened around the same time as the femininst movement gained traction, but so the ? what i can draw a direct connection between feminism and changes and you cannot do the same for any of those other factors.
The bolded is not really true and is also a matter of opinion, My claim is that feminism has negatively altered society i used court ruling as a symptom of that.
Patriarchy = a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line; a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.
Feminism = the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
Contradictory concepts
Your evidence is simply "A happened around the time of B so A caused B"
Further you haven't even dropped any numbers for court cases or shown how exactly men are being treated unfairly -
@trashboat
Actually feminist don't have a solid definition of patriarchy and i am done with you. A directly lead to B. i am not dropping court cases and all that ? because your argument to me and any sane thinking person is sophistry
-
Sophistry = the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
Yet your argument is a false cause fallacy -
Sophistry = the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
Yet your argument is a false cause fallacy
My argument is not fallacy feminism did directly lead to changes. all this other yak yak you are running your mouth about talking about other factors look there are other factors in everything. but you eliminate them and support the once with the best chance of having a direct cause -
desertrain10 wrote: »
Whether or not it's selfish is besides the point
Morals aside one could even argue a legal abortion is no different than wearing a condom...the desired result is the same
Again...
Yes both men and women contribute to the biology of the fetus, however fact remains the choice to have or not to have a child significantly affects the biology of a woman not the man, therefore she should be able to make that decision for herself
Pregnancy is life threatening, life altering experience
Equal rights consist of things like all genders being able to vote, because everyone both men and women have the CAPACITY to vote, and should be able to vote. By not allowing a certain segment of society to vote, we are discriminating against them
When a man can create and carry a child in his own ? , come back to me about equal rights for men
1) Whether it's selfish or not is not besides the point. We're talking about rights that people should have. Women don't have the right to fulfill every selfish desire they may have.
2) Are you kidding me with the comparison you making? You wear condoms to prevent pregnancies. You get abortions to end pregnancies. The distinction between those two things is not a moral one, it's a biological one. In the first case there is no new human life and you're taking measures to stop that from happening. In the second case, you've created an early case of human life and you're destroying it.
3) My wife and I have a car in both of our names. She uses the car a lot more than I do. It has a much bigger affect on her life than it does on mine. That doesn't mean she can just go sell it without consulting me or without my permission. We both engaged in the act of buying it. We both contributed to purchasing it. We both get say in what happens to it regardless of which one of us is more strongly affected. The same goes with pregnancy. Both people consent to having sex. That's the act of "purchase." Both contribute DNA. That's the "money." Both should have some say in whether it's aborted or not. That's the "sell." Maybe the woman should have more say since she's more greatly affected, but the idea that she should be able to make the decision without regard to what the man wants at all is BS especially given that the decision can greatly affect the man's life.
4) You don't get to move the goal line as you see fit. This is what you and the rest of the feminists don't seem to get. You can't define what is a right based on what benefits you. Pregnancy is life altering, but so is bringing the child into the world. Whether or not the baby is born can have a huge effect on every aspect of a man's life so again, it's nonsense for you to act like the woman is the only one that has any real stake in the future of that decision is ? . You're so concerned with biology. There are general differences between men and women. Men are generally more physical capable, more logical in their thought processes, and are not subject to things like menstruation or pregnancy which can take women away from work or at the very least detract from her work. Those are all biological, so why is it not ok to screen workers based on those biological facts, but ok to deny rights based on the biology of who carries a child? -
Sophistry = the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
Yet your argument is a false cause fallacy
My argument is not fallacy feminism did directly lead to changes. all this other yak yak you are running your mouth about talking about other factors look there are other factors in everything. but you eliminate them and support the once with the best chance of having a direct cause
You've done nothing to show how Feminism rather than patriarchy and benevolent sexism is the main cause
Methinks you've never been to college -
Men don't bear the physical costs of reproduction, it makes no sense for them to dictate whether or not women ensure them
Word to the second sex -
What's the current argument? Because if you can call anything ? then who really wants to be around you. You're dangerous for a guy with good intentions. If you can't make up your mind then you need to do some self revaluation.
-
Sophistry = the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
Yet your argument is a false cause fallacy
My argument is not fallacy feminism did directly lead to changes. all this other yak yak you are running your mouth about talking about other factors look there are other factors in everything. but you eliminate them and support the once with the best chance of having a direct cause
You've done nothing to show how Feminism rather than patriarchy and benevolent sexism is the main cause
Methinks you've never been to college
I have two master degrees. there has always been patriarchy and benevolent sexism but it was not until the feminist movement in this nation that any laws were passed that in an attempt to fix these thought of wrongs more wrongs were created
and methinks you are a teen age transgender idiot who thinks he's smart -
Sophistry = the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
Yet your argument is a false cause fallacy
My argument is not fallacy feminism did directly lead to changes. all this other yak yak you are running your mouth about talking about other factors look there are other factors in everything. but you eliminate them and support the once with the best chance of having a direct cause
You've done nothing to show how Feminism rather than patriarchy and benevolent sexism is the main cause
Methinks you've never been to college
I have two master degrees. there has always been patriarchy and benevolent sexism but it was not until the feminist movement in this nation that any laws were passed that in an attempt to fix these thought of wrongs more wrongs was created
What wrongs?
Alimony? That's a response to the rise in divorce
As are custody disputes
-
Sophistry = the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
Yet your argument is a false cause fallacy
My argument is not fallacy feminism did directly lead to changes. all this other yak yak you are running your mouth about talking about other factors look there are other factors in everything. but you eliminate them and support the once with the best chance of having a direct cause
You've done nothing to show how Feminism rather than patriarchy and benevolent sexism is the main cause
Methinks you've never been to college
I have two master degrees. there has always been patriarchy and benevolent sexism but it was not until the feminist movement in this nation that any laws were passed that in an attempt to fix these thought of wrongs more wrongs was created
What wrongs?
Alimony? That's a response to the rise in divorce
As are custody disputes
It's not just alimony and child support laws,it's the whole way of thinking that these birds have now that leads to all this ? .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf4yHgXdjPY
