Might makes right, I guess.
Pentagon to allow Women into frontline combat by 2016
- Thread starter IA
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
An entire page full of attacking character yet not touching the argument.
I'm sure there's a term for that, somewhere.
As far as that's concerned, the "might makes right" argument is pretty old, for sure. Although, however unfair and ****ed up it is, and as much as people hate to admit it, it does have some truth to it.
I'm sure there's a term for that, somewhere.
Papa Lazarou said:
As far as that's concerned, the "might makes right" argument is pretty old, for sure. Although, however unfair and ****ed up it is, and as much as people hate to admit it, it does have some truth to it.
Bromden said:
I was born.
You guys all seem to be missing the broader point, as well.
I'm making light of the fact that feminists and sympathizers buy into the "patriarchy," yet forget that in order to ascend to this evil ruling class status, you kind of had to let them beat you there in the first place.. But in the next breath you're preaching equality.
I'm keeping my personal opinion out of it, but looking at it objectively, it's a point that gets ignored because it riles people up and hurts their feelings, much like this last page of character assassination shows.
Good question though, what have males done to achieve the evil "patriarchy" label they've been assigned by extreme feminists? What have they done to alledgedly dominate the corporate world and rule social inequalities?
rebelsquirrell
Grandmaster Knight
Rhade said:
Mainstream feminism would probably answer that last bit with the following:
1 Manufacturing false beliefs, even if sincerely uttered they are still false, such as women are naturally nurturing, caddy, week etc.
2.Enforcing value dissonance between the sexes, boys are only valuable if they are tough and women if they are timid etc.
This is desire based domination, one always seeks to gratify the greatest and most numerous of ones own desires. Patriarchy, like "moral" codes and governments, attempt to ensure that the path that gratifies the greatest and most numerous of one's own desires corresponds to a "moral/social/legal code" by praising,condemning, rewarding, or punishing certain desires.
Women tend towards certain paths because "manly" qualities effect them negativity. Imagine a woman with three desires with varying intensities. She has a desire to join a sports team (5), find a casual sexual partner (2), and receive praise for her successes (8 ).
Now imagine this woman in two scenarios, patriarchy and gender neutral societies.
In the gender neutral society she will be able to fulfill all three of her desires and will act to do so.
However in the patriarchal society if she joins a sports team she will be condemned not commended, likewise if she finds a casual sex partner she will be called a whore. By choosing to fulfill these two desires she reaches a preference satisfaction level of 7.
However if she goes into a home economics course she will receive praise for her success and generate a preference satisfaction level of 8, thus she is compelled to enter the home economics course in order to fulfill the greatest and most numerous of her own desires.
Broadly speaking feminist want to abolish patriarchy in order to allow for a woman to obtain higher degrees of preference satisfaction by removing any of societies' praise, reward, condemnation or punishment of desires that women are "supposed" to have by virtue of being women.
Sir Saladin
Count
So by "letting them beat you there in the first place" you deserve to be shat upon because you aren't worthy of elite status. Is that the idea?
If that's what he means then he would be a big fan of a ruling class whose members earn their positions of power and status by heredity, no matter how stupid and/or lazy they happen to be.
From this hereditary throne they can then squash everyone beneath them and prevent anyone from ever gaining a higher status. This doesn't hurt my feelings or make me cry, I just don't think that kind of might is right.
If that's what he means then he would be a big fan of a ruling class whose members earn their positions of power and status by heredity, no matter how stupid and/or lazy they happen to be.
From this hereditary throne they can then squash everyone beneath them and prevent anyone from ever gaining a higher status. This doesn't hurt my feelings or make me cry, I just don't think that kind of might is right.
You can't really get anymore gay than being a misogynist. Seriously, one day you beat 'your' woman for daring to go to college, telling her that she is inferior 'cuz men are smarter, fitter and better looking then next day you are sucking cock. It's a slippery slope I tell you.
And now it has happened.
Defence Secretary Ashton Carter decided that the remaining 10% of MOS that were forbidden for women have been opened. Women can now apply to all combat MOS, including special forces. The change becomes effective from 1st January 2016.
I think we won't see the first female Navy Seal for years though, if ever.
Defence Secretary Ashton Carter decided that the remaining 10% of MOS that were forbidden for women have been opened. Women can now apply to all combat MOS, including special forces. The change becomes effective from 1st January 2016.
I think we won't see the first female Navy Seal for years though, if ever.
Wonderful news, good to hear that the world is progressing.
Great news!
Are you just going to say that and then not post any?
A few men in there for good measure.
