#MeToo Hysteria Is A Pretext For Women To Take Power And Money Away From Men - Page 77 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14989631
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, I remember. And if my memeory serves me correctly, you made no real argument then either. You simply claimed your definition of assault was the only good one and you insulted anyone who disagreed with you.


Actually, that wasn't the conversation I was thinking of, but I do remember that one too now that you bring it up, which means I was involved in this thread several times in its illustrious history.

Likewise, your memory does not serve you well as you were challenged by me on your use of power-dynamics and your definition of rape and were soundly refuted.

That the conversation was eventually dropped by me though is quite possibly because I do not subscribe to the adolescent theory that the last person to post is the winner of a debate. Rather, when the conversation has reached a dead end I will stop engaging rather than repeating myself ad nauseam.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You are obviously trolling instead of making good faith arguments. We all know that.


In this case you are absolutely correct.

and you fed the troll beautifully. Thanks for the laugh, as usual. :lol: :lol: :lol:
#14989634
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Likewise, your memory does not serve you well as you were challenged by me on your use of power-dynamics and your definition of rape and were soundly refuted.


No.

You simply repeated your definition over and over again, if I recall.

And you also beat your proverbial chest about how you would never accpet being sexually assaulted in order to keep a job, and I then pointed out how this was just you generalising from your own experience of privilege.
#14989636
Pants-of-dog wrote:You simply repeated your definition over and over again, if I recall.


Actually, if I recall you were avoiding not only that definition, but refusing to discuss the relationship of consent to voluntary agreements. A typical move you do when you are backed in a corner; avoid definitions and the proper use of terms.

Pants-of-dog wrote:nd you also beat your proverbial chest about how you would never accpet being sexually assaulted in order to keep a job, and I then pointed out how this was just you generalising from your own experience of privilege.


Yes because a woman in an employed position JUST HAS TO SUCK HER EMPLOYER'S DICK....the power dynamics makes it impossible for her to refuse. :lol: :lol:

Yeah, I remember that dumb argument, and I wasn't just referring to myself, but to many women who wouldn't do such a thing either; irrespective of the consequences.

That old fashioned sense of shame and dignity that you'd probably just dismiss as "feelings" or "privleage." :lol:

Likewise, dismissing an argument on the basis of the arguer's "privilege" is a poisoning-the-well fallacy and a genetic-fallacy.
#14989641
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Actually, if I recall you were avoiding not only that definition, but refusing to discuss the relationship of consent to voluntary agreements. A typical move you do when you are backed in a corner; avoid definitions and the proper use of terms.


No, I specifically addressed how coercion can remove consent through means other than violent ones, which is why your defintion was incorrect, as it focused solely on violence.

Yes because a woman in an employed position JUST HAS TO SUCK HER EMPLOYER'S DICK....the power dynamics makes it impossible for her to refuse. :lol: :lol:

Yeah, I remember that dumb argument, and I wasn't just referring to myself, but to many women who wouldn't do such a thing either; irrespective of the consequences.


You often end up swearing when you feel people are not obeying you.

Certain situations would make it very difficult for her to refuse. Imagine she had a child that had a life threatening chronic disease that she cannot afford to treat except wih insurance. And this job was the only one she could get that provided insurance. Her child’s life would require she keep the job, and she would then be unable to say no.

That old fashioned sense of shame and dignity that you'd probably just dismiss as "feelings" or "privleage." :lol:

Likewise, dismissing an argument on the basis of the arguer's "privilege" is a poisoning-the-well fallacy and a genetic-fallacy.


Actually, I am pointing out that you generalised from a single experience (i.e. yours) and that is a fallacy.

Mentioning privilege is about explaining how people have different material contexts that shape their decisions. People with more privilege have more opportunities to avoid those situations where they may be sexually assaulted.

Assuming that all people share your opportunities is illogical.
#14989646
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, I specifically addressed how coercion can remove consent through means other than violent ones, which is why your defintion was incorrect, as it focused solely on violence.


Yes and I addressed that in spades, as your understanding of coercion was ambiguous and broad to the point of being meaningless.

Essentially, any transaction can be regarded as coercive under your use of the terms.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You often end up swearing when you feel people are not obeying you.


Yes, I know that naughty words hurt your feelings. We've established this quite often, in fact I think it was on this thread that you dropped an entire conversation with me because I used the "F" word. Oh the HORROR!!

This is also a Fallacy of presumption. You are presuming without evidence that me requesting for you to answer questions in a debate is somehow an attempt to enslave you; which is of course absurd and likely the result of some sort of sexual fantasy stemming from an obsession with post-colonialist theory.

Overall its just Childish sentimentalism; evidence of a very emotional disposition indeed.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Imagine she had a child that had a life threatening chronic disease that she cannot afford to treat except with insurance. And this job was the only one she could get that provided insurance. Her child’s life would require she keep the job, and she would then be unable to say no.


I believe I addressed this exact example if memory serves me correctly. :lol:

Pants-of-dog wrote:Actually, I am pointing out that you generalised from a single experience (i.e. yours) and that is a fallacy.


Which is fine, and you could have said that we are not admitting any ancedotal evidence and I would gladly accept those terms; however, that is not what you said. You also dismissed the argument on the basis of my "privelage," which is atleast two fallacies.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Mentioning privilege is about explaining how people have different material contexts that shape their decisions. People with more privilege have more opportunities to avoid those situations where they may be sexually assaulted.


Sure, but dismissing an argument on the basis of privelage is still fallacious and is not acceptable in debate and you have done this several times when you have gotten too emotional to debate your point in a calm manner.

This usually happens around the same time your start chronically misspelling stuff.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Assuming that all people share your opportunities is illogical.


I never made this assumption nor have I argued such; I argued based on sound definitions regarding the nature of voluntary agreements; an area that you quickly abandoned as it revealed the serious issues with your position; especially its sweeping ambiguity.
#14989648
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Yes and I addressed that in spades, as your understanding of coercion was ambiguous and broad to the point of being meaningless.

Essentially, any transaction can be regarded as coercive under your use of the terms.


How so?

I believe I addressed this exact example if memory serves me correctly. :lol:


I doubt it.

I remeber this as when you gave up.

Which is fine, and you could have said that we are not admitting any ancedotal evidence and I would gladly accept those terms; however, that is not what you said. You also dismissed the argument on the basis of my "privelage," which is atleast two fallacies.

Sure, but dismissing an argument on the basis of privelage is still fallacious and is not acceptable in debate and you have done this several times


I have described why it is not fallacious to note that different people have different contexts and so it makes no sense to assume that everyone has the same opportunities to leave work as you do.

Do you disagree?

I never made this assumption nor have I argued such; I argued based on sound definitions regarding the nature of voluntary agreements; an area that you quickly abandoned as it revealed the serious issues with your position; especially its sweeping ambiguity.


If you are arguing that forcing your employess to have sex with you is not assult because the employee could simply quit, and using your own life as an explanation as to why they could do so, you are implicitly assuming that everyone has the same opportunities as you.

This is not the case.
#14989658
Pants-of-dog wrote:I have described why it is not fallacious to note that different people have different contexts and so it makes no sense to assume that everyone has the same opportunities to leave work as you do.Do you disagree?


Barring the need to define "opportunity," I have never disagreed that circumstances vary for different human beings, even by demographic; however, no argument I have ever made has rested on such claim or its opposite for that matter.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you are arguing that forcing your employess to have sex with you is not assult because the employee could simply quit, and using your own life as an explanation as to why they could do so, you are implicitly assuming that everyone has the same opportunities as you.This is not the case.


No, I think forcing someone against their will to have sex is rape.

I think voluntarily agreeing to have sex is not; nor would I regard it as assault. I think our laws our flawed in this regards.

Pants-of-dog wrote:and using your own life as an explanation as to why they could do so, you are implicitly assuming that everyone has the same opportunities as you.


I already agreed that ancedotal evidence cannot be the sole basis of the argument and that we can bar such from further discussion; however, your statement is not entirely accurate, for even if everyone's circumstances are different in many areas; there will still exist certaintly similarities which are common to all human beings as agents. In the context of this conversation; things like "coercion" "volition" "voluntarism" "violence" etc., are definitions with a universal applicable meaning irrespective of circumstance.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I remeber this as when you gave up.


Feel free to post a link to that conversation so that I can examine this claim of yours.

Pants-of-dog wrote:How so?


If you want to start that debate over again now; feel free to post the relevant conversations' link.

If you do so, I am game to debate it again if you are.

I'll await your decision.
#14989663
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Barring the need to define "opportunity," I have never disagreed that circumstances vary for different human beings, even by demographic; however, no argument I have ever made has rested on such claim or its opposite for that matter.

No, I think forcing someone against their will to have sex is rape.

I think voluntarily agreeing to have sex is not; nor would I regard it as assault. I think our laws our flawed in this regards.


And I would clarify that the woman in the hypothetical example is being forced to have sex because of economic circumstances that few of us share.

Economic forms of coercion can be just as good as violence in terms of removing consent if the stakes are high enough.

I already agreed that ancedotal evidence cannot be the sole basis of the argument and that we can bar such from further discussion; however, your statement is not entirely accurate, for even if everyone's circumstances are different in many areas; there will still exist certaintly similarities which are common to all human beings as agents. In the context of this conversation; things like "coercion" "volition" "voluntarism" "violence" etc., are definitions with a universal applicable meaning irrespective of circumstance.


Sure.

As far as Ic an tell, the only problem we have in this respect is that you do not see economic coercion as falling under the defintion of coercion.

For me, it does because there is a still of form of inequality that is then used as leverage to force the less powerful party to do somwthing they would not choose to do.
#14989675
As far as Ic an tell, the only problem we have in this respect is that you do not see economic coercion as falling under the defintion of coercion.

For me, it does because there is a still of form of inequality that is then used as leverage to force the less powerful party to do somwthing they would not choose to do.


Clearly the boss/employee dynamic fosters the possibility of coercion standing little short of rape. The power inequity is obvious. An employee working for low wages, for example, is particularly vulnerable for two reasons. First that they are at an economic disadvantage that may literally hold them one paycheck from financial ruin. This removes what would otherwise be simply a matter of choice. The threat of firing is not an inconvenience; it is a real danger to life and property.

The second dynamic we have not covered yet. That is that when it is OK for bosses to prey on their employees, sexual desirability is over-emphasized in hiring. I will not argue that this is unfair to less attractive people though it is true. I will argue that it is unfair to the stockholders and shareholders of the business who expect that their profits go to the best employee for the buck and not a toy for the boss.

There are times when attractiveness is a legitimate aspect of the job. Fashion models come to mind. In a runway show I would want the clothes I design to be shown in the best possible light. A 200 pound model will not do that. So, in that case, we are speaking of a simple business decision. The current trend to "correctly sized" models is absurd to me. And a bad business decision. This is not true of bookkeepers though. The decision to hire a bookkeeper because the boss wants to sleep with them should not be permitted by law.
#14989717
Drlee wrote:The current trend to "correctly sized" models is absurd to me. And a bad business decision.
It's not a bad decision if you are modelling clothes for 200 lb people. Otherwise, I agree with you.

The current trends for plus-size models comes more from the fat-shaming nonsense and from trying make clothes to fit America's ever-expanding waist-lines.
#14989754
The current trends for plus-size models comes more from the fat-shaming nonsense and from trying make clothes to fit America's ever-expanding waist-lines.


True. From a marketing standpoint I would still choose thinner models. Clothing choices are aspirations. We choose clothing not by how they make us look but by how we want them to make us look. But perhaps I could have chosen a different example. My point was that there is a place for allowing appearance (sex appeal) to be a factor in employment. But it should never be a factor when the sole reason for looking at it is to provide an attractive target for the boss.
#14989828
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Victoribus Spolia

Let me know if you have any actual argument.

There are no factual arguments to be made in a thread about whether "METOO" is being used to disempower men.
It's all conjecture. There are no "facts" that can "prove" this, nor can purely "facts" be used to prove many other "theories."

I would argue that "other men" are using MeToo to disempower working class men. Rich guys like Harvey Weinstein will never be making license plates for free in some North Dakota prison. BUt today, with MeToo hysteria, young men are finding it harder than ever to "make the first move" on girls. And this kind of sexual repression has real negative side effects on both individuals and society.

Your "Dog hanging off panties" approach to women's issues is very trendy and very dumb. Men who regurgitate every commercial feminist meme thay encounter are no wiser than those hopeless TV sitcom wives who hug their husbands coats while waiting for hubby's triumphant return to the house at 5 pm. Pathetic trend-following.
#14989838
QatzelOk wrote:I would argue that "other men" are using MeToo to disempower working class men.


Very true, but not just working class men, but men in their same class.

I'm sure lots of executives at companies are digging up dirty on each other related to MeToo to blackmail and/or to kick people off the corporate ladder. :) It's a wonderful strategy.
#14990408
Godstud wrote::roll: Yes, @QatzelOk, and Incels were caused by #Metoo, as well.

You aren't any smarter or wiser than anyone else. Stop pretending that you are.

What crappy ad hom.

MeToo has begun to attack male IQ, and I blame this partially on people like skinster. :eh:
#14990464
All your posts are shit, lately, @QatzelOk. Do you you even know what an Ad Hominem is? :lol:

Go make your own thread on the white male victim. I am sure it will gain lots of support from the Incels and misogynists who lurk on the fringes.
Last edited by Godstud on 25 Feb 2019 00:21, edited 1 time in total.
#14990477
Godstud wrote:You aren't any smarter or wiser than anyone else. Stop pretending that you are.

If you don't like people saying original or provocative things, just go to another website that's more to your liking.

Trying to dumb down the thread like you're doing is always a bad idea, uless the objective is to kill thought. Which it is. This killing-of-thought, by the way, is one of the sicknesses of society and civilization. Citizens are encouraged to kill any thoughts that challenge their societies social order.

In this (free!!) book, Michel Foucault describes this phenomenom.

https://monoskop.org/images/9/99/Foucau ... ociete.pdf

He also writes about how most social institutions are about turning humans into pets (disciplinary institutions), and sexual regulation is a large and important one of these herding-tools.
#14990478
:lol:

Trolling, as usual.

You were the one suddenly bringing MEN into a thread that isn't about them. You're a white male who is feeling victimized because women are standing up for their rights. Poor you.

No. You're the one dumbing down things to peddle your own petty little agenda. :O

I must have hit a nerve, since normally you don't respond to anyone and blather on without actually engaging people in conversation.
  • 1
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 91

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Only Zionists believe that bollocks and you lot ar[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]