[Meslocusist]

Well, DDM has already essentially admitted that a "real man" is a psychopath (In the post where he said that a real man would not care what someone thought of them). So does being incapable of govern as well as being incapable of following the law really surprise you?

I would like to know what the difference between "rugged individualism" and regular individualism is. Hint for DDM: that was one of the two vague things on your list.

Still waiting for a full list, though it's increasingly looking like DDM is incapable of giving one. Since that's essentially equivalent to an admission of defeat, I'm okay with that.

[DanDaMan]

Well, DDM has already essentially admitted that a "real man" is a psychopath

Duh. I'm a real man!

[Meslocusist]

Ha ha.

How about that list (If I don't see one within 24 hours, chances are that I'm going to assume that you do not have one)?

[DanDaMan]

I will once again assume that it is a social construct and you have essentially admitted that you are wrong.

How do you know I'm wrong within my social construct are you are right with yours?

[Meslocusist]

Because you are talking about the idea of a "real man" and "masculinity" as if they actually exist, and should actually have weight in human society. If you cannot define the concept, it cannot exist. I am not supporting this taboo, therefore the burden of proof falls on you. Basic logic. Should I construe that post as an admission that you cannot give a complete list of specific and non-tautological characteristics of a "real man"?

[DanDaMan]

Because you are talking about the idea of a "real man" and "masculinity" as if they actually exist, and should actually have weight in human society.

Actions do have weight when compared to other actions.

[Meslocusist]

Well, congrats, the level at which your post does not make sense has elevated itself from the grammatical plane into the plane of basic logic. No need to restate, I know what you mean by the post, but it makes no sense nevertheless.

Clearly you are not capable or not willing to provide a list of the qualities required to be a "real man," and therefore I feel I can safely assume that it is basically BS that you have accepted as fact without even knowing what it really is. Given that my definition for a real man (A man [a human that has a y-chromosome and is 18+] that exists) is supported by science, is logically consistent, and is not based on an irrelevant, outdated, and nonfunctional social conception, I declare you to be wrong (and intellectually dishonest to boot).

Not that we didn't know any of this.

[DanDaMan]

Well, congrats, the level at which your post does not make sense has elevated itself from the grammatical plane into the plane of basic logic. No need to restate, I know what you mean by the post, but it makes no sense nevertheless.

What construct would make sense then?

[Meslocusist]

Oh, the problem is merely that your post is based on a flawed assumption, that being that actions that you do not consider to be those of a "real man" are bad. There is really nothing you can do to the phrasing of the post to change that, though feel free to try.

[PBVBROOK]

I have been in bars in San Francisco where if DDM tried to talk his bullshit he had better be the ruggedist individual in the world. Or he would get his ass handed to him by some very dangerous gays.

So its all about rugged individualism, hey DDM?

You mean real men like:

Hadrian? He was about as dangerous as one can get.

Alexander the great: Let's see?

Rugged? Yup. Individual? yup.

Naaaa. I'm not going to feed the troll. As often is said: "Don't wrestle with pigs. You will just get dirty and the pig likes it."

[DanDaMan]

Oh, the problem is merely that your post is based on a flawed assumption, that being that actions that you do not consider to be those of a "real man" are bad.

So then a real man is perfect in your eyes? A god, perhaps?
And in your construct... what is "bad"?

[Meslocusist]

Need I define a real man, again?

A real man is a Man (a human that is 18 years old or older and has a y-chromosome) that exists.

It would appear that a "real man" is perfect in your eyes. Essentially, I was saying that your post was a tautology and gives no new information.

Basically, your post was based on the underlying assumption that a "real man" is different than a real man (See definition above), which is just not true. Therefore your post is wrong.

Essentially, I'm saying that your entire understanding of gender roles is wrong. Therefore anything you say on the topic is overwhelmingly likely to be wrong.

[DanDaMan]

Need I define a real man, again?

A real man is a Man (a human that is 18 years old or older and has a y-chromosome) that exists.

That's a "male" not a man.
What you do defines defines you from male, to a boy or to a man.

Essentially, I'm saying that your entire understanding of gender roles is wrong. Therefore anything you say on the topic is overwhelmingly likely to be wrong.

Show me a gender role(s) that defines you as a man and not a male?

Here's one I can quantify...
A male gets a woman pregnant.
A man marries, works and lives with the woman and child for the raising and welfare of the child.

Can you give a competent discrimination similar to that?

[Meslocusist]

That's a "male" not a man.

Male

-noun

1. a person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei and normally having a penis, scrotum, and testicles, and developing hair on the face at adolescence; a boy or man.

Man

-noun

1. an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman.

You fail. I used a correct biological definition, if you've got a problem with that then that's just too bad for you, since any definition that doesn't say basically the same thing will be wrong.

What you do defines defines you from male, to a boy or to a man.

Actually, puberty defines whether you are a boy or a man (Or, for that matter, a girl or a woman).

Show me a gender role(s) that defines you as a man and not a male?

I'm pretty sure going the fact of having gone through puberty is not specific to any gender.

Here's one I can quantify...
A male gets a woman pregnant.
A man marries, works and lives with the woman and child for the raising and welfare of the child.

Quantification involves numbers. You vocalized, elaborated, described, and expanded upon. You did not quantify. You want me to discriminate? I paid more attention than you did in English and Health class.

A man is as a man does. Some men do that, others don't. I believe you have said that you do not have kids. Does that mean that you are not a man?

[DanDaMan]

A man is as a man does. Some men do that, others don't.

So then for you an adult male sodomizing a child is a "man" or, as I like to call it, a "real man"?
IE you are telling us you do not discriminate a difference between a male that sodomizes children from a male that does not, correct?

[ThereBeDragons]

IE you are telling us you do not discriminate a male that sodomizes children from a male that does not.

He said nothing of the sort.

You said it. Stop putting words in other people's mouths.

[Meslocusist]

Exactly what ThereBeDragons said- One is a pedophile and a rapist, one is not. But they are both men, by your own admission (assuming that the adult male is human, which I think is fair to assume, then they both qualify as men). Since they both exist, they are also hypothetically real men, since they are hypothetically real (though, unfortunately there are men of both types).

[DanDaMan]

Exactly what ThereBeDragons said- One is a pedophile and a rapist, one is not. But they are both men, by your own admission (assuming that the adult male is human, which I think is fair to assume, then they both qualify as men). Since they both exist, they are also hypothetically real men, since they are hypothetically real (though, unfortunately there are men of both types).

Which of the two, if at all, is abhorrent to you?

[Meslocusist]

I would say it's about time I stopped responding to your nonsense, since you've already lost.

[DanDaMan]

Quote:
Exactly what ThereBeDragons said- One is a pedophile and a rapist, one is not. But they are both men, by your own admission (assuming that the adult male is human, which I think is fair to assume, then they both qualify as men). Since they both exist, they are also hypothetically real men, since they are hypothetically real (though, unfortunately there are men of both types).

Which of the two, if at all, is abhorrent to you?

I would say it's about time I stopped responding to your nonsense, since you've already lost.

Lost? I'm not the one backing out on a simple Q.

My answer would be the child rapist is a monster and not a man.
But hey, I just use common sense. You may be right... they are one in the same and I'm delusional.