Dissidents Philosophy Forum

Internet Philosophical Community
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 The Idiocy Of Feminism

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2
AuthorMessage
Unreasonable
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 728
Age : 34
Location : Purgatory
Registration date : 2008-12-13

PostSubject: Re: The Idiocy Of Feminism   Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:40 pm

Satyr wrote:
Sex doesn't evolve to satisfy your needs.
It doesn't?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Alexi
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Number of posts : 84
Location : Paris suburbs
Registration date : 2008-12-15

PostSubject: Re: The Idiocy Of Feminism   Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:40 pm

Nicholas wrote:
Feminism solely exists on the metanarrative that men have systematically oppressed and subjugated women throughout history where through collective guilt guided by the eternal illusions of moral judgement men must pay for their sins by that of penance by allowing women to enjoy the same dominion and domain of men.
This flaw has been common to nearly every revolutionary movement. The natives overrun the foreign quarter -- then settle in. It is not particular to women, Chinese or anyone else. It is why Mao was so obsessed with wiping out the reactionaries, and why Saloth Sar drove the native bourgeoisie out of the cities; or why polio vaccinations are mandatory.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
The Fool
Administrator
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 368
Age : 30
Location : United States Midwest
Registration date : 2008-12-12

PostSubject: Re: The Idiocy Of Feminism   Fri Jan 02, 2009 10:33 am

Alexi wrote:
Nicholas wrote:
Feminism solely exists on the metanarrative that men have systematically oppressed and subjugated women throughout history where through collective guilt guided by the eternal illusions of moral judgement men must pay for their sins by that of penance by allowing women to enjoy the same dominion and domain of men.
This flaw has been common to nearly every revolutionary movement. The natives overrun the foreign quarter -- then settle in. It is not particular to women, Chinese or anyone else. It is why Mao was so obsessed with wiping out the reactionaries, and why Saloth Sar drove the native bourgeoisie out of the cities; or why polio vaccinations are mandatory.

It used to be that revolutions were fought with the sword or rifle where thousands would take to the street in a violent frenzy.

Today's revolutions are dictated by whining masses who use guilt in order to subjugate those that they otherwise could not overthrow themselves by using subjective terms of right and wrong which they of course pretend to have some sort of objective agenda or insight.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://dissidentsphilosophy.alldiscussion.net
maryshelley
Animated Voice
Animated Voice


Number of posts : 242
Registration date : 2008-12-16

PostSubject: Re: The Idiocy Of Feminism   Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:44 am

Satyr wrote:


Quote :
1) Who defines men? Are men or women definable?
Nature defines men.
Nature defines nothing. Nature produces. Humans are biological products of nature. Humans seek to define - in order to attempt tounderstand.

What is an Indian? Is an Indian any different to a German?

Quote :
his past determines his essence...not man...nature and the circumstances of his natural selection.

Germans are not different from Indians accidentally or superficially they are so due to particular environmental conditions which each one inherits. If this is not so then all species distinctions are similarly superficial and nothing can be said about anything based no appearances.

Germans are different to Indians in appearance because of environmental conditions. They are different culturally due to social conditions/conditioning.

Quote :
Grow, the fuck, up!!!
I assure you I am. It's time you did a little growing.


Quote :
2) Eh? Humans moralise, generally speaking.

Quote :
Humans moralize to ensure what is beneficial to them is established as a communal rule.
And might this, then, ensure their survival - you know long enough to procreate?

Quote :
Quote :
3) What is the traditional family unit?
Quote :
One based on the original intent of any sexual intercourse: reproduction.
A relationship that does not or can never produce offspring is one antithetical to the original intent of sex and is either a psychological union or a social construct...or both.
So what? A relationship that doesn't produce offspring is what? Morally it is wrong? Or morally it is right? Or morally it doesn't matter a hoot? It's just a fucking relationship.

Quote :
Grow, the fuck, up!!!
Yes why don't you?

Now I'll answer the question for you. 'What is a traditional family unit?'
In humans where infants are helpless in the face of predators and cannot hold onto a hairy parent's back someone needs to hold the baby whilst another goes in search of resources; or you stick with your extended family which will allow infants to be cared for whilst the adults go in search of resources. Or maybe the reproductively inactive in your family will do it. Or the barren or the slightly slow on their feet........?
Everything to do with practicality when circumstances dictate. But humans like to call it tradition and then circumstances change and everyone starts foaming at the mouth.


Quote :
4) You what?
Quote :
What?
So some women play some men at their own game (trying to define their acts/preferences as moral/immoral in some way) and then everyone starts foaming at the mouth.

Might I suggest we as individuals start deciding what is right and wrong for us as individuals. At the moment I can tell you i don't fancy a horse-whipping, raping, strangulation or a beating. Nor do I wish to be limited by YOUR definitions of what I should or shouldn't be.

Quote :
5) Are you suggesting that such differences are anything other than socially constructed outside the need to breed, that is?

Quote :
Quote :
The need to breed is what produced the distinction between sexes....without it there is no reason for male to be other than female.
Sex doesn't evolve to satisfy your needs.

You don't need a male and a female to reproduce. You need a male and a female to reproduce a live offspring. If sex is percieved as enjoyable might it be that more males and females will have it and as often as possible and where might that get us? Right where we are today.

Quote :
American pioneer frontier women. Native american women. What would they think about and compare to the squealing, mini skirted, high heel wearing twits crawling around American shopping malls?

Quote :
Not much, i suspect.

sheltering and feminization is not restricted to only males.

Being a spoiled, pampered, demanding, weak, prissy female is what feminization is.

Go tell that to a female lion/tiger/leopard/cheetah/jaguar

Being spoiled, pampered, demanding, weak and prissy is the product of poor parenting...and (in appearance at least) abundance.

All that feminism did was identify a perceived flaw in an accepted logic based on 'tradition' that one half of a whole is better (at) or worse (at) than another half when in fact they are the part of the same whole.

Think, walk, speak, fuck, run, care, reproduce, laugh, shout, moan, lift, mend, break wind, survive?
Who does it fastest, hardest, longest, easiest.....?
At the moment humans win hands down.

In terms of 'growing up' it is time the whole human race did, frankly.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 540
Age : 51
Location : The Edge
Registration date : 2008-12-13

PostSubject: Re: The Idiocy Of Feminism   Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:59 am

maryshelley wrote:
Satyr wrote:


Quote :
1) Who defines men? Are men or women definable?
Nature defines men.
Nature defines nothing. Nature produces. Humans are biological products of nature. Humans seek to define - in order to attempt tounderstand.
Therefore, via human consciuosness, nature defines...and via differences nature defines.

Quote :
What is an Indian? Is an Indian any different to a German?
The label itself designates a difference.

If you choose to think it superficial, then you should ask yourself why, when you do not choose to think it superficial to designate a difference in genetic heritage between a dog and a wolf...based on appearances.


I assure you I am. It's time you did a little growing.
Quote :

This isn't a response. It is an allusion.
If by "growing" you mean surrendering myself into your culturally produced beliefs and faith based delusions, then I will remain as "childish" as I please.

You can "mature" into your full nihilistic obsolescence if you wish.
Adhering to current morays and turning myself into a mirror that reflects another's will and another's opinions, even if this is a popular practice, is not progress, to me.

Quote :
And might this, then, ensure their survival - you know long enough to procreate?
Yes, and so morality is a means to an end; a useful instrument of self-repression forced upon mankind as a compromise due to mortality.

Quote :
So what? A relationship that doesn't produce offspring is what?
It is unfit, from a genetic standpoint.
From a psychological standpoint it is comforting.

Quote :
Morally it is wrong? Or morally it is right? Or morally it doesn't matter a hoot? It's just a fucking relationship.
Very good, darling, now making someone who enjoys a relationship where another male penetrates his anus with no possible outcome except the satisfaction of his depraved psyche into the equal of one that does so to replicate itself or respecting such a depraved person on the basis that he has a "right" to do whatever (s)he pleases if, and only if, it does not threaten the majority's interests, is a forced exercise in futility.

I would say that a necrophiliac does not bother me either, but his "passion" does expose something about him/her and it does put his/her judgment, and his/her overall well-being, under question.

Sex, sexual fantasies and attractions are a barometer of human psychology.

Quote :
Now I'll answer the question for you. 'What is a traditional family unit?'
Has this still escaped your "wise" mind's understanding?

Sex evolved for a reason, darling....and marriage was the social application, the cotnrol of this drive for socially productive reasons.
That this insti9tution was then offered certain economic privileges so as to help sustain it and promote it is part of the deal.

The rest I leave for you to figure out on your own.

Quote :
In humans where infants are helpless in the face of predators and cannot hold onto a hairy parent's back someone needs to hold the baby whilst another goes in search of resources; or you stick with your extended family which will allow infants to be cared for whilst the adults go in search of resources. Or maybe the reproductively inactive in your family will do it. Or the barren or the slightly slow on their feet........?
Everything to do with practicality when circumstances dictate. But humans like to call it tradition and then circumstances change and everyone starts foaming at the mouth.
Very good, baby cakes, now follow that line of reasoning and ask yourself why monogamy had to be ensured and how it was made possible in a species that is not monogamous.

Quote :
So some women play some men at their own game (trying to define their acts/preferences as moral/immoral in some way) and then everyone starts foaming at the mouth.
What a self-flattering remark.

Did I claim promiscuity was immoral or that the elimination of the family was something to cry over?

If feminine emancipation results in the elimination of this family, with all the consequences this entails, then women should not bitch and moan when males adapt to it.

Granted, you will find passionate allies in the sub-standard male who finds in the family unit an opportunity to procreate or in playing your loyal subject the method of gaining your sexual favors, but I remain indifferent to your needs.

There was a reason why female sexual choice had to be curbed, what you would call "paternalism", and with the elimination of this social technology some social consequences will ensue...much as you may try to avoid the responsibility.

Quote :
Might I suggest we as individuals start deciding what is right and wrong for us as individuals. At the moment I can tell you i don't fancy a horse-whipping, raping, strangulation or a beating. Nor do I wish to be limited by YOUR definitions of what I should or shouldn't be.
You may think of yourself as an "individual" but you do not think as one.
Western "individualism" is a misnomer, an Orwellian wordspeak.
What females have been emancipated form is not the masculine authority, but the masculine middle-man, the representative, the emasculated symbol of male power.

Women seek "equality" under this authority and they wish the biological male be estalbished as just another female under institutional power.

The feminization of man simply entails the uniformity of establishing feminine human traits as the desirable traits under a male (institutional) power that retains the monopoly over masculine options.

Quote :
You don't need a male and a female to reproduce. You need a male and a female to reproduce a live offspring. If sex is percieved as enjoyable might it be that more males and females will have it and as often as possible and where might that get us? Right where we are today.
And?

Quote :
Go tell that to a female lion/tiger/leopard/cheetah/jaguar

Being spoiled, pampered, demanding, weak and prissy is the product of poor parenting...and (in appearance at least) abundance.
Thank you for repeating what I've been saying all along.

Metrosexuals are no less the result of systemic sheltering than increased homosexuality is or this faked equality is.

The "parent" sweetie is the institution.
The government raises your children, darling, and if you, as a parent, choose to teach it ideas and ideals that go agaisnt its authority it will correct you, take them away or quarantine the lot of you.

Quote :
All that feminism did was identify a perceived flaw in an accepted logic based on 'tradition' that one half of a whole is better (at) or worse (at) than another half when in fact they are the part of the same whole.
Feminism did no such thing.

This equality is a result of man-made ideals that can be traced back to Christianity and Democracy.

But one half of the whole, darling, is always better or worse than the other half at many things.

One half is stronger than the other half; one half has more endurance than the other half.....that one half just happened to evolve a better ability to abstract and so dominated, is an evolutionary product.
Trying to "correct" this natural product using human inventions is where the meddling of humanity begins.

That females were dominated for centuries should not be blamed on males...blame natural selection and the process that necessitated a reproductive strategy of live births.
That it now has become obsolete under human systems where uniformity is preferable to multiplicity, is why this is occurring.

Quote :
Think, walk, speak, fuck, run, care, reproduce, laugh, shout, moan, lift, mend, break wind, survive?
Who does it fastest, hardest, longest, easiest.....?
At the moment humans win hands down.

In terms of 'growing up' it is time the whole human race did, frankly.
This concept of "growing up" is yuor way of saying that all must adhere to yuor culturally determined ideals which make all differences superficial and aesthetics is selectively applied.

I would say your naivete is the antithesis of maturing...
That you relabel it as 'growing up' and you urge all to remain or to become as naive and dumb as you are, is understandable.

The uniformity of stupidity is also desirable to the system.

Nature, the original system, does not work on uniformity but on differentiation and divergence.
The existence of differences exposes a heritage one inherits and determines his/her success within a given environment.
Human environments promote uniformity by sheltering differences from the consequences of these differences.
It does so to harmonize itself and it is a uniformity built on lies, bullshit and contrived ideals that try to "correct" natural processes.

If this troubles your childish mind, this is of no concern to me.
You can call your childishness, "growing up", if you wish.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://calicantsar.blogspot.com/
maryshelley
Animated Voice
Animated Voice


Number of posts : 242
Registration date : 2008-12-16

PostSubject: Re: The Idiocy Of Feminism   Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:41 am

[quote="Satyr"]
maryshelley wrote:
Satyr wrote:


Quote :
1) Who defines men? Are men or women definable?
Nature defines men.
Nature defines nothing. Nature produces. Humans are biological products of nature. Humans seek to define - in order to attempt tounderstand.

Quote :
Therefore, via human consciuosness, nature defines...and via differences nature defines.

What are the differences, as defined by nature, between a man and a woman other superficial differences designed to reproduce and raise young according to certain environmental conditions.

Quote :
What is an Indian? Is an Indian any different to a German?
The label itself designates a difference.

Quote :
If you choose to think it superficial, then you should ask yourself why, when you do not choose to think it superficial to designate a difference in genetic heritage between a dog and a wolf...based on appearances.
The genetic difference between dogs and wolves is very small as are the behavioural differences. Dogs have been selectively bred by humans for particular traits. Both dogs and wolves can be trained from an early age. Just like humans.


[quote]I assure you I am. It's time you did a little growing.
Quote :

This isn't a response. It is an allusion.
If by "growing" you mean surrendering myself into your culturally produced beliefs and faith based delusions, then I will remain as "childish" as I please. [/quote

I am simply engaging in the same playground tactics that you do. Forgive me my childishness.

Quote :
You can "mature" into your full nihilistic obsolescence if you wish.
Adhering to current morays and turning myself into a mirror that reflects another's will and another's opinions, even if this is a popular practice, is not progress, to me.

I have done all that 'nature' set out for me to do. All the rest is just opinion isn't it. now what should I do?

Quote :
And might this, then, ensure their survival - you know long enough to procreate?

Quote :
Yes, and so morality is a means to an end; a useful instrument of self-repression forced upon mankind as a compromise due to mortality.

What philosophical nonsense! 'Morality' is a symptom of consciousness. An awareness of self and of others. Individual 'morality' is simply the presence of a conscience and most people (aside from the brain damaged and the brain injured) have one. There is more and more evidence that other mammals (included the usual primates that are trotted out on these occasions) such as elephants, whales, and dolphins have a conscience too. Well I'll be god-damned. Therefore you might say that conscience is nature's little secret survival tool. Stupid humans just mistook it for god or morality. Or something.

Quote :
Quote :
So what? A relationship that doesn't produce offspring is what?
It is unfit, from a genetic standpoint.
From a psychological standpoint it is comforting.

And? So those who cannot procreate should just just remain celebate or better yet throw themselves to the lions? Satyr comes over all catholic?

Quote :
Morally it is wrong? Or morally it is right? Or morally it doesn't matter a hoot? It's just a fucking relationship.

Quote :
Very good, darling, now making someone who enjoys a relationship where another male penetrates his anus with no possible outcome except the satisfaction of his depraved psyche into the equal of one that does so to replicate itself or respecting such a depraved person on the basis that he has a "right" to do whatever (s)he pleases if, and only if, it does not threaten the majority's interests, is a forced exercise in futility.

I would say that a necrophiliac does not bother me either, but his "passion" does expose something about him/her and it does put his/her judgment, and his/her overall well-being, under question.

Sex, sexual fantasies and attractions are a barometer of human psychology.

Funny I thought you said sex was for reproductive purposes only? Are you saying sex is for something else now?What does the existence of homosexuality in other animals say about nature? That it is unnatural or that it just happens or that it happens for a reason? Are penguins, bonobos and chimps depraved? Or insatiable? Or social?
My guess, or opinion I should say, homosexuality exists for a reason. Stupid humans just don't know why. Yet. Maybe it's just to disgust satyr, or some other philosophical god.

Quote :
Now I'll answer the question for you. 'What is a traditional family unit?'
Has this still escaped your "wise" mind's understanding?

Sex evolved for a reason, darling....and marriage was the social application, the cotnrol of this drive for socially productive reasons.
That this insti9tution was then offered certain economic privileges so as to help sustain it and promote it is part of the deal.

The rest I leave for you to figure out on your own.

Quote :
In humans where infants are helpless in the face of predators and cannot hold onto a hairy parent's back someone needs to hold the baby whilst another goes in search of resources; or you stick with your extended family which will allow infants to be cared for whilst the adults go in search of resources. Or maybe the reproductively inactive in your family will do it. Or the barren or the slightly slow on their feet........?
Everything to do with practicality when circumstances dictate. But humans like to call it tradition and then circumstances change and everyone starts foaming at the mouth.

Quote :
Very good, baby cakes, now follow that line of reasoning and ask yourself why monogamy had to be ensured and how it was made possible in a species that is not monogamous.

Quote :
So some women play some men at their own game (trying to define their acts/preferences as moral/immoral in some way) and then everyone starts foaming at the mouth.

Quote :
What a self-flattering remark.
Really? How so?

Quote :
Did I claim promiscuity was immoral or that the elimination of the family was something to cry over?

Did I? But the family exists in nature and nature should be preserved at all costs shouldn't it? Oh but then promiscuity exists in nature as does monogamy. Oh god I'm so confused! Aren't you?

Quote :
If feminine emancipation results in the elimination of this family, with all the consequences this entails, then women should not bitch and moan when males adapt to it.
Why should 'feminine emancipation' result in the elimination of the family?
If women shouldn't bitch and moan then neither should men, then - which is exactly what I'm saying. Stop bitching and moaning and grow up. Humans. In other words take responsibility.
What would a truly 'wise' creature encourage in any given set of circumstances? The use of what one has to the best advantage. Or some set of random definitions based on some woollly notion of some point in nature being a starting point.
Change. Adapt. That's only natural.


Quote :
Granted, you will find passionate allies in the sub-standard male who finds in the family unit an opportunity to procreate or in playing your loyal subject the method of gaining your sexual favors, but I remain indifferent to your needs.

Does your indifference to my needs make you an individual then? What does my indifference to your needs make me? Males and females seek opportunities to procreate. Why beat them up for it?

Quote :
There was a reason why female sexual choice had to be curbed, what you would call "paternalism", and with the elimination of this social technology some social consequences will ensue...much as you may try to avoid the responsibility.

You are pinning an awful lot on my shoulders.

Quote :
Might I suggest we as individuals start deciding what is right and wrong for us as individuals. At the moment I can tell you i don't fancy a horse-whipping, raping, strangulation or a beating. Nor do I wish to be limited by YOUR definitions of what I should or shouldn't be.

Quote :
You may think of yourself as an "individual" but you do not think as one.
Western "individualism" is a misnomer, an Orwellian wordspeak.
What females have been emancipated form is not the masculine authority, but the masculine middle-man, the representative, the emasculated symbol of male power.

Is satyr an individual then, or just part of an orwellian dystopia?

Quote :
Women seek "equality" under this authority and they wish the biological male be estalbished as just another female under institutional power.

The feminization of man simply entails the uniformity of establishing feminine human traits as the desirable traits under a male (institutional) power that retains the monopoly over masculine options.

Well that's certainly an opinion.

Quote :
You don't need a male and a female to reproduce. You need a male and a female to reproduce a live offspring. If sex is percieved as enjoyable might it be that more males and females will have it and as often as possible and where might that get us? Right where we are today.

Quote :
And?

And if this changes we'll be somewhere else entirely. And change it will of that there is no doubt.

Quote :
Go tell that to a female lion/tiger/leopard/cheetah/jaguar

Being spoiled, pampered, demanding, weak and prissy is the product of poor parenting...and (in appearance at least) abundance.

Quote :
Thank you for repeating what I've been saying all along.

You have? Shame i haven't been along for the ride then it seems.

Quote :
Metrosexuals are no less the result of systemic sheltering than increased homosexuality is or this faked equality is.

The "parent" sweetie is the institution.
The government raises your children, darling, and if you, as a parent, choose to teach it ideas and ideals that go agaisnt its authority it will correct you, take them away or quarantine the lot of you.

Ah damn. I wish I'd realised that sooner than I did.

Quote :
All that feminism did was identify a perceived flaw in an accepted logic based on 'tradition' that one half of a whole is better (at) or worse (at) than another half when in fact they are the part of the same whole.

One half is stronger than the other half; one half has more endurance than the other half.....that one half just happened to evolve a better ability to abstract and so dominated, is an evolutionary product.
Trying to "correct" this natural product using human inventions is where the meddling of humanity begins.

Quote :
That females were dominated for centuries should not be blamed on males...blame natural selection and the process that necessitated a reproductive strategy of live births.
That it now has become obsolete under human systems where uniformity is preferable to multiplicity, is why this is occurring.
Are you saying here that live births are obsolete or that sexual reproduction is. Or something else? If it is the first two then both are incorrect assertions. Reproduction and live births are very much, er, alive.

Quote :
Think, walk, speak, fuck, run, care, reproduce, laugh, shout, moan, lift, mend, break wind, survive?
Who does it fastest, hardest, longest, easiest.....?
At the moment humans win hands down.

In terms of 'growing up' it is time the whole human race did, frankly.

Quote :
This concept of "growing up" is yuor way of saying that all must adhere to yuor culturally determined ideals which make all differences superficial and aesthetics is selectively applied.

You are very good at putting words that you'd like to hear in people's mouths in order to berate or prove something in yourself. you know that superior versus stupid obsession that you have. All a bit sexual if you ask me but you didn't so I'll shut up about it.

So let us be clear on my opinion. I claim it as my own based on many, many years of experience and quiet observation and no little somewhat painful introspection. I have indeed listened to the opinions of others but I can usually recognise an opinion for what it is at the end of the day. Someone else's opinion; or if I'm being very generous; someone else's perception. Perception, rightly or wrongly, is everything. There is also knowledge but all claimed knowledge also is open to challenge.

So for what it is worth here is my opinion: Er In the plural:

Human beings are animals. Human beings have large brains which allow us to do all manner of amazing things that other creatures cannot do such as talking and emoting and imagining. The funny thing is other animals can do this as well to a certain extent but we won't concern ourselves with this too much as it makes our positions on some things untenable. And life is cruel. Well it isn't really it's just that we like to label it as such. In reality life, well just is! Anyway getting back to humans. On account of our large brains we get up to all sorts of nonsense. We conjure up systems, faiths, habits, cultures, economies, policies, myths, legends, machines, labels, prejudices, we sometimes even cook our food before we eat it and paint pictures of things. We also reproduce offspring.

In amongst all this noise it's sometimes hard to remember that we are 'only' human and all that entails.

Life is troubling, satyr. Isn't it? It just won't bend to my will so I'll have to invent some things to attempt to make it do so.

I'll start with faith.
Then I'll add a little democracy. Or theocracy. Or communism. Or nazism. Or some other system. Meritocracy anyone?
Throw in a few weapons.
Fool the people into thinking they are very, very different (did I say 'different' I meant 'better') to and waaaay above the other animals in any shape or form.
Then I'll make sure that I instil a great amount of fear. Fear always works as a divider and pacifier, funnily enough.
I'll divide the people. Even and especially when they come into contact with each other because that is very dangerous. I'll find some way to divide them up. I might even use some statistics to help with that.
Hell I'll even try to divide the people along gender lines and exploit any 'unnatural' tendency to want to be something another persons servant or master!

And when everyone is corralled into neat little groups never the twain meeting and all that. Well then I'll begin to wonder why all the bright ones which I placed in a lovely warm cage over there who for years happily interbred aren't producing bright offspring anymore. In fact they are producing dummies. Some of the offspring even have physical defects!! And, why, that group of males all corralled together isn't producing any offspring at all but they are smiling a lot. And why the females over there aren't producing any offspring either and oh god what have I done??? Perhaps I should just leave them to it because over a very long period of time probably millions of years or less the females may just resort to asexual reproduction. What kind of catastrophy would then ensue?

Oh my childish babbling!

Males need females; women need men; people need people and other animals for as long as the current conditions prevail.

All the rest is just opinionated philosphers.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 540
Age : 51
Location : The Edge
Registration date : 2008-12-13

PostSubject: Re: The Idiocy Of Feminism   Mon Jan 05, 2009 9:26 am

maryshelley wrote:

What are the differences, as defined by nature, between a man and a woman other superficial differences designed to reproduce and raise young according to certain environmental conditions.
The differences made necessary to carry out their biological tasks, such as survival and reproduction: physical, psychological mental all of them.

Quote :
The genetic difference between dogs and wolves is very small as are the behavioural differences. Dogs have been selectively bred by humans for particular traits. Both dogs and wolves can be trained from an early age. Just like humans.
Good...dogs have been domesticated by being selected according to traits...and so you are now realizing that humans have been domesticated similarly.

The difference being that one selection is unconscious due to natural mechanisms within natural environments, while the other is willful using social mechanisms within man made environments.

Quote :
I am simply engaging in the same playground tactics that you do. Forgive me my childishness.
Not your tactics, dear, yuor brain.
There's that evasion again.

Quote :
I have done all that 'nature' set out for me to do. All the rest is just opinion isn't it. now what should I do?
If thinking is out of the question, then surrender as you do...but at least do not pretend you are then thinking.

Quote :
What philosophical nonsense!
Nice argument.

Quote :
'Morality' is a symptom of consciousness. An awareness of self and of others.
Awareness does not force a particular rule.
Morality is a rule of behavior.

In nature a behavior is judged by its success not its righteousness or "goodnness".

Quote :
Individual 'morality' is simply the presence of a conscience and most people (aside from the brain damaged and the brain injured) have one. There is more and more evidence that other mammals (included the usual primates that are trotted out on these occasions) such as elephants, whales, and dolphins have a conscience too. Well I'll be god-damned. Therefore you might say that conscience is nature's little secret survival tool. Stupid humans just mistook it for god or morality. Or something.
Idiot, did I not say that morality is the way society establishes rules by using the natural product of "good/bad" used to determine what is useful from what is not useful to the organism?
Did I not say that all social animals have some form of moral behavior?

Morality is a compromise; an individual sacrifice with the home of a better return.
A result on individual weakness. The compromise is made necessary because the individual cannot survive or reproduce on its own.

Quote :
And? So those who cannot procreate should just just remain celebate or better yet throw themselves to the lions? Satyr comes over all catholic?
My dear, "should" is a moralistic word.
Nature will take care of those that are unfit, and releasing women from the old controllers will, inevitably, result in just that.

The process has already begun...can you see it?

Quote :
Funny I thought you said sex was for reproductive purposes only?
is that what I said?

I said that sex only evolves for reproductive purposes. That it then takes on added social significance is part of its evolutionary history.
That in modern human environments it then slowly loses its reproductive purpose and takes on its ,later evolved, roles exclusively is a matter of human intervention.

If you cannot follow then go away.

Quote :
Are you saying sex is for something else now?What does the existence of homosexuality in other animals say about nature?
That mutations arise that result in either survival or death and that only in human environments where culling is kept at a minimum and weakness is sheltered, they are allowed to flourish.

Quote :
That it is unnatural or that it just happens or that it happens for a reason? Are penguins, bonobos and chimps depraved? Or insatiable? Or social?
are they not social?
Is not sex used for stress relief?

But tell me, which species, other than the human one, is a male penetrated sexually?
What do these displays display if not a submission and dominance of one over the other?

Quote :
My guess, or opinion I should say, homosexuality exists for a reason. Stupid humans just don't know why. Yet. Maybe it's just to disgust satyr, or some other philosophical god.
It exists as a byproduct of social groups that force emasculation within males, to one degree or another, and which are then protected from death by their surrender to it.
Homosexuality is a mutation that is unfit - parasitical. It only persists because it is not harmful to the group but a symptom of this necessary submissiveness forced on by communal living.

Quote :
Did I? But the family exists in nature and nature should be preserved at all costs shouldn't it? Oh but then promiscuity exists in nature as does monogamy. Oh god I'm so confused! Aren't you?
You are confused and simplistic.
Carnivores and herbivores and omnivores also exists in nature but each species has its own niche and its own methods and its own evolutionary background.

Quote :
Why should 'feminine emancipation' result in the elimination of the family?
If women shouldn't bitch and moan then neither should men, then - which is exactly what I'm saying. Stop bitching and moaning and grow up. Humans. In other words take responsibility.
What would a truly 'wise' creature encourage in any given set of circumstances? The use of what one has to the best advantage. Or some set of random definitions based on some woollly notion of some point in nature being a starting point.
Change. Adapt. That's only natural.
Indeed, and also consider the repercussions and take responsibility for them as the cost for your ideals.

If you do not yet understand why feminism results in the eradication of the traditional family, then you aren't able to follow.


If you cannot follow that then the rest of what you say is irrelevant and based on your inability to comprehend.

Maybe you should meditate.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://calicantsar.blogspot.com/
maryshelley
Animated Voice
Animated Voice


Number of posts : 242
Registration date : 2008-12-16

PostSubject: Re: The Idiocy Of Feminism   Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:31 am

Satyr wrote:

The differences made necessary to carry out their biological tasks, such as survival and reproduction: physical, psychological mental all of them.

Tell me. Do male and females need large brains to reproduce? Or do only humans need them. Why did humans evolve 'uneccessarily' large brains? I mean which came first the reproduction or the large brain?

Quote :
Good...dogs have been domesticated by being selected according to traits...and so you are now realizing that humans have been domesticated similarly.

And how exactly have humans been selectively bred? By social mechanisms you say? And for how long would you say this 'social selectivety' been going on?

Tell me satyr do you know how to walk? Or drive a car? Can you cook a meal? Do you know how to read? Can you have a verbal conversation? Do you believe in god? Can you make and build a yurt? Are you a democrat? Or a satanist? Can you tell a good story? Can you whistle?

Which of the above requires training? Which of the above requires indoctrination? And which of those is innate? And what do you need to be able to tell the difference between them?




Quote :
If thinking is out of the question, then surrender as you do...but at least do not pretend you are then thinking.

Here that? That is the sound of you moralising. It's noisy.

Quote :
Nice argument.
Nice opinion.



Quote :
Awareness does not force a particular rule.
Morality is a rule of behavior.

In nature a behavior is judged by its success not its righteousness or "goodnness".


'Success', eh? So might a particular behaviour be a 'success' in one organism and not in another? I mean if a sheep were to go at a wolf baring its teeth and trying to howl. Would that work? Or would the sheep have to evolve another behaviour in order to survive? If both the sheep and the wolves survive would that be regarded as success? Or would you prefer no sheep at all and just wolves:caribou? It is all relative.


Quote :
Morality is a compromise; an individual sacrifice with the home of a better return.
A result on individual weakness. The compromise is made necessary because the individual cannot survive or reproduce on its own.

An individual can survive on its own. Only if it needs to reproduce sexually does it need a mate. If it then wants its helpless offspring to survive it needs to keep the mate around. Both parents, genetically speaking, have an interest in the survival of their young until said young can 'stand on their own two feet'.

Quote :
And? So those who cannot procreate should just just remain celebate or better yet throw themselves to the lions? Satyr comes over all catholic?

[quote]
Quote :
My dear, "should" is a moralistic word.
Nature will take care of those that are unfit, and releasing women from the old controllers will, inevitably, result in just that.

The process has already begun...can you see it?

The process does not have a beginning or an end. The species homo sapiens sapiens might become extinct. Would that be a beginning? Can you see that happening? And if that happened; what would happen then?



Quote :
I said that sex only evolves for reproductive purposes. That it then takes on added social significance is part of its evolutionary history.
That in modern human environments it then slowly loses its reproductive purpose and takes on its ,later evolved, roles exclusively is a matter of human intervention.

Sexual reproduction evolves because sexual reproduction is a better way to procreate under certain conditions. If conditions change and given enough time the method of reproduction may also change.

Quote :
If you cannot follow then go away.

I prefer to walk alongside or alone.


Quote :
That mutations arise that result in either survival or death and that only in human environments where culling is kept at a minimum and weakness is sheltered, they are allowed to flourish.

Have you heard of the word 'virus'? Love humans they do. The more; the merrier. Shelter the weak. Isolate the strong. Or vice versa. They like that. Or take the risk and expose. Is the exposure killing you or making you stronger?

Quote :
But tell me, which species, other than the human one, is a male penetrated sexually?
What do these displays display if not a submission and dominance of one over the other?

I really don't know? Does all homosexuality involve males penetrating anuses? You're the expert you tell me. As for dominance/submission: It depends whether one is a giver or a taker or up for a bit of both I suppose.



Quote :
It exists as a byproduct of social groups that force emasculation within males, to one degree or another, and which are then protected from death by their surrender to it.
Homosexuality is a mutation that is unfit - parasitical. It only persists because it is not harmful to the group but a symptom of this necessary submissiveness forced on by communal living.

I remain unpersuaded by this argument. If it were unfit by the laws of evolution as you intepret them it wouldn't exist at all, is my guess. I might hazard another guess and say that homosexuality reduces reproductive competition. But then some homosexuals do have biological children. And heterosexuals do rather inconveniently continue to reproduce homosexuals.


Quote :
You are confused and simplistic.
Carnivores and herbivores and omnivores also exists in nature but each species has its own niche and its own methods and its own evolutionary background.

And what is the evolutionary background of omnivours?



Quote :
If you do not yet understand why feminism results in the eradication of the traditional family, then you aren't able to follow.


If you cannot follow that then the rest of what you say is irrelevant and based on your inability to comprehend.

Maybe you should meditate.


I shall meditate on the phrase 'Industrial Revolution' in relation to 'traditional families' and feminism and see where that gets me and wehther indeed such things might be related.
I will also keep thinking about brains and evolution.
I might also ponder a little more upon the sheep and the wolves.
I shall certainly think about sex a lot.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: The Idiocy Of Feminism   

Back to top Go down
 
The Idiocy Of Feminism
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 2Go to page : Previous  1, 2
 Similar topics
-
» Dissecting Feminism in a nut-shell
» Antony Hegarty - Future Feminism

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Dissidents Philosophy Forum :: Sociology-
Jump to: