Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:51 pm what's clear from that study is that women "overwhelmingly" prefer the males who have the traditional "high status" male traits of aggression, irresponsibility and risk-taking behaviour

As usual, you've rearranged wording to change meaning in a way that suits yourself.

The word "overwhelmingly" was used in this context: "Overwhelmingly, participants said those with more masculine features were likely to be risky and competitive and also more apt to fight, challenge bosses, cheat on spouses and put less effort into parenting."

Then the article says: "Despite all the negative attributes, when asked who they would choose for a short-term relationship, women still selected the more masculine looking men."

Did you MISS the words "short-term relationship"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:51 pm and to reject the soft, nurturing types, the tame ones.

Nope! "Those with more feminine faces were seen as good parents and husbands, hard workers and emotionally supportive mates." Sorry, neither this article or the others backup your claims that: "The sociological analysis shows that inevitably, they want to marry someone richer, more powerful and more able in some important way than they are. /...And, conversely, as a statistical average, women tend to reject men whom they see as merely "equal" or *gasp* "lower" than they are in the socio-sexual hierarchy. It's the classic, "We're just friends," or "I couldn't date him...he's like my brother!"

I'm not cherry-picking by summarizing what the articles said and were focused on, to show that they don't support your claims. Take responsibility for your own lame failure to provide applicable resources, and for the bloated nature of your spew.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:51 pm I could go on. But why bother?

Right, no need to bother with your usual load of distorted guff.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:51 pm For, as usual, you end with the ad hominem fallacy, your last refuge every time, it seems.

I'm simply speaking the truth about your behavior. You mangle concepts and interpretations to suit yourself. And you have proven yourself to be a sneaky and dishonest person in the process, while projecting an arrogance totally unbefitting of your twisted positions and claims.

This is a good demonstration of how you operate with information, whether it be mainstream or religious. You can't be credible when you do stuff like this.

Lacewing wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:51 pm
I could go on. But why bother?

Right, no need to bother with your usual load of distorted guff.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:51 pm
For, as usual, you end with the ad hominem fallacy, your last refuge every time, it seems.
I'm simply speaking the truth about your behavior. You mangle concepts and interpretations to suit yourself. And you have proven yourself to be a sneaky and dishonest person in the process, while projecting an arrogance totally unbefitting of your twisted positions and claims.

This is a good demonstration of how you operate with information, whether it be mainstream or religious. You can't be credible when you do stuff like this.

IC, try as you may you will not surplant my reputation as the supreme archvillain and scourge of secular idolatry. I have to admit you're off to a good start and are acquiring credentials

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:48 pm
IC, try as you may you will not surplant my reputation as the supreme archvillain and scourge of secular idolatry. I have to admit you're off to a good start and are acquiring credentials

If I succeed, do I get a cape?

The main factor that makes both sides of the same coin equal is that we're all equally obnoxious...or tarnished speaking of coins.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:56 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:48 pm
IC, try as you may you will not surplant my reputation as the supreme archvillain and scourge of secular idolatry. I have to admit you're off to a good start and are acquiring credentials

If I succeed, do I get a cape?

Yes. Not only a cape but you will be entitled to ten free lessons in posture to receive the full benefits of the cape. Also you will receive personal instruction on the art of the condescending scowl to get the most from your correct commanding posture. Success has its benefits.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:11 pm The main factor that makes both sides of the same coin equal is that we're all equally obnoxious...or tarnished speaking of coins.

I agree. Man's classic sin is pride. Women know how to manipulate this weakness. In contrast, a woman's classic sin is vanity and men know how to manipulate this weakness. All this seemingly necessary manipulation can be considered obnoxious.

No manipulation is needed for exposing the truth. Truth is what exposes manipulation. That may feel obnoxious to the manipulator.

Hmm. Mr Can or Nick_A?
Tough call.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:48 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:11 pm The main factor that makes both sides of the same coin equal is that we're all equally obnoxious...or tarnished speaking of coins.

I agree. Man's classic sin is pride. Women know how to manipulate this weakness. In contrast, a woman's classic sin is vanity and men know how to manipulate this weakness. All this seemingly necessary manipulation can be considered obnoxious.

I was thinking more in terms of our tendency to behave very badly in which neither half can claim superiority to the other. It's this lowest common denominator which first and foremost makes us equals. Let's admit that when looking at the human race overall, there's more reason to puke than exult.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:17 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:27 pm What sociological analysis?

Well, this, for example: https://www.livescience.com/9487-women- ... lings.html

OK. Your very first link contradicts your usual rubbish. Haven't read the other two yet.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:24 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:48 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:11 pm The main factor that makes both sides of the same coin equal is that we're all equally obnoxious...or tarnished speaking of coins.

I agree. Man's classic sin is pride. Women know how to manipulate this weakness. In contrast, a woman's classic sin is vanity and men know how to manipulate this weakness. All this seemingly necessary manipulation can be considered obnoxious.

I was thinking more in terms of our tendency to behave very badly in which neither half can claim superiority to the other. It's this lowest common denominator which first and foremost makes us equals. Let's admit that when looking at the human race overall, there's more reason to puke than exult.

Let's admit that when looking at the human race overall, there's more reason to puke than exult.

One thing I've learned about the human condition is that it is simultaneously capable of the greatest expressions of compassion and the greatest atrocities. How can this be? Consider the entertainment business. Now all of a sudden it has become clear that women are abused in show business. Of course some are perfectly willing to go to bed with producers for starring roles. but that isn't the point. How can the arts which classically served to raise the human perspective is controlled by the lowest of the low. Are these manly men? Of course not. Manly men treat women with respect. Yet at the same time we know of the great compassionate efforts doctors and charities have made. How can we be part of the same species.

Is it really reasonable to decide if there is more reason to puke or exalt or is it more reasonable to open to the idea that the hypocrisy of the collective human condition is just a reflection of our own fallen fallen condition. How do we move beyond casting blame and become open to understanding human hypocrisy by witnessing in it ourselves?

What if we are the wretched man as described by St. Paul in Romans 7? Hypocrisy is then the norm and no sense blaming scapegoats. Michelle Obama is right. But others preventing girls from feeling what it means to be female are equally wrong. So the fallen human condition creates stunted boys and girls capable in the future of both the greatest acts of compassion and committing the greatest atrocities.

Jesus was right to say "Forgive them for they know not what they do." That defines the human condition. Can't we do more than puke at it or exalt it in response to it?

A rooster sits on eggs.

My friend (who keeps him and two hens) is surprised and makes hilarious remarks:
"What are you doing, George ? Are you confused about your sexuality ?" etc.

An animal choses to perform a typically female task.
Is he particularly manly because he does not care about the public opinion and does what he feels like doing ?

duszek wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:17 am A rooster sits on eggs.

My friend (who keeps him and two hens) is surprised and makes hilarious remarks:
"What are you doing, George ? Are you confused about your sexuality ?" etc.

An animal choses to perform a typically female task.
Is he particularly manly because he does not care about the public opinion and does what he feels like doing ?

We're back to the question of ideals. MO suggests that women protect men. This raises the possibility of the objective masculine ideal women are denying. In these days of equality the concept of the ideal man is not politically correct and should be ridiculed. The ideal man can only be defined by subjective secular social standards. Is there an objective ideal man or a potential which could inspire normal men having little to do with social standards?

Is the social purpose of a strong man just men the ability to serve the dictates of society? Would the strong man willingly accept xenaphobia? Would they acquire the fear that the great warrior princess Xena will jump through the TV screen and kick their behinds?

Do we know what a manly man is or are we confined to fashionable social concepts? Perhaps men are really being protected from the inner awareness of what they are as opposed to how they are being conditioned.

Who does not need protection ?

People who are resilient, who can endure hardships.

If women protect men they prevent them from becoming strong and turn them into wimps.