"Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

On the true meaning of "reduction ad absurdum"

Anthropology, Economics, History, Sociology etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#781  Postby DarthHelmet86 » Nov 13, 2014 5:59 am

How do the dead suffer like the living?

It is pretty clear that the living do suffer and that loss of a partner is a devastating experience that can lead to many long years of suffering. With some people killing themselves to end it. Others fight through it for all kinds of reasons and to claim because they are doing that they must not be suffering is stupid.
I. This is Not a Game
II. Here and Now, You are Alive
User avatar
DarthHelmet86
RS Donator
 
Posts: 10344
Age: 36
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#782  Postby TMB » Nov 13, 2014 6:16 am

Sendraks wrote:
DarthHelmet86 wrote:If the size arguments hold valid then it would seem that men will never be able to live as long as women on average unless the size average is also brought closer together.


Given the age gap in the UK has narrowed from six to four years in last three decades, I'm confident that this can be made smaller still. They may never be 100% equal, but if the gap is brought down to a year's difference, this would be a) a huge achievement and b) certainly reduce any perceived inequalities/advantages/disadvantages.


On what basis are you confident that the gap can be reduced to just 1 year. In an earlier post you were talking about gaps of 10-20 years, you have misinterpreted how life expectancy is calculated. I am not sensing much expertise in these areas from you.
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#783  Postby Sendraks » Nov 13, 2014 10:34 am

TMB wrote:On what basis are you confident that the gap can be reduced to just 1 year.

Because the gap is a) far smaller than I thought it was and b) has reduced over the past few decades from 6 to 4 (in the evidence provided). I present no time frame for when such a reduction might occur, but given there are significant gains to be made in tackling mens health issues (see the alcohol, smoking, weight data), it is a reasonable conclusion to draw that further reductions can be made.

TMB wrote:you have misinterpreted how life expectancy is calculated.

I made no misinterpretation of calculations. Perhaps you would like to quote where I have made a miscalculation.
I was misunderstood on the actual extent of the age gap. That is not the same as a miscalculation, given that no calculating occurred.

TMB wrote:I am not sensing much expertise in these areas from you.

I have, however, provided links to the relevant information from people with more expertise than me.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15252
Age: 106
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#784  Postby Sendraks » Nov 13, 2014 10:43 am

TMB wrote:This is not how life expectancy is measured.


Instead of making fatuous claims, why don't you present your alternative measures for how life expectancy is measured.
I've provided data from reliable sources. Where is yours?

TMB wrote:You suggesting that life somehow allows advantage to be gained, but I se life as an end in itself as long as it has quality but I se life as an end in itself as long as it has quality. If you are not alive you have no opportunity whatever unless you believe in life after death. I do not see that there is a difference in the latter years of either gender in terms of the degrading quality of life, illness as they approach the end. Since this is the case, we can assume that women will generally get more years where the quality is OK.


I concur that quality of life is important, which is why I provided the data on healthy years of life (a significant measure of quality. Did you look at that?

TMB wrote:You are also arguing that when your loved ones die, it is worse for the one left alive.

Yes, I believe that to be the case, whether the living partner is male or female.

TMB wrote:If we assume that dead people do not suffer as do the living,

There is no assumption here. We know that dead people do not suffer.

TMB wrote: if life was so bad for these'victims ' of war they would end their lives.

Some people do end their lives. Others struggle and carry on, eventually making their lives better again. Others live on in misery. To simply conclude that the latter group should just "kill themselves" shows a woeful lack of understanding of the mental health issues which can drive someone to suicide.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15252
Age: 106
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#785  Postby Doubtdispelled » Nov 13, 2014 11:01 am

TMB wrote:
tolman wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
DarthHelmet86 wrote:If the size arguments hold valid then it would seem that men will never be able to live as long as women on average unless the size average is also brought closer together.


Given the age gap in the UK has narrowed from six to four years in last three decades, I'm confident that this can be made smaller still. They may never be 100% equal, but if the gap is brought down to a year's difference, this would be a) a huge achievement and b) certainly reduce any perceived inequalities/advantages/disadvantages.

I don't see why issues which may be meaningfully biological are necessarily best seen as 'inequalities' in any kind of 'discrimination' sense.

Though, of course, were figures the other way round, there would arguably be quite a few people calling themselves feminists who would argue that the figures were proof (or evidence approximating proof) of sexist disadvantage, unless there was undeniable evidence to the contrary.


Since there have been arguments advanced that due to women being physiologically weaker than men is the reason why women are protected in sport and athletics, does the argument that men being physiologically more moribund than women not mean they should be given some form of beneficial discrimination?

Leaving aside the fact that your use of the word 'protected' in this context speaks volumes about your bigotry, what forms of 'beneficial discrimination' would you propose be offered to men in order to bring their life expectancy in line with that of women? To 'protect' them against dying younger, in other words.

I've heard, for instance, (and those of a squeamish disposition should look away now) that castration of the male human leads to longer life expectancy, but I think that's rather an extreme solution.

:shifty:
God's hand might have shaken just a bit when he was finishing off the supposed masterwork of his creative empire.. - Stephen King
Doubtdispelled
 
Posts: 11848

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#786  Postby Fallible » Nov 13, 2014 11:11 am

I think this is an instance of someone being so desperate to not admit they are wrong that they begin to make clearly counter-factual 'arguments'. 'If we assume that dead people do not suffer as do the living'? One thing which would appear to be rather beyond dispute unless you believe in life after death is that the dead experience nothing at all, be that pleasure or pain. Quite clearly then, the living experience more suffering by virtue of the fact that the dead do not experience at all, and it is therefore worse for the one left alive when a loved one dies, simply because the loved one no longer 'is', and the one left behind is suffering.

Looking at suicide in particular, men successfully complete more and women attempt more. TMB has repeatedly shown that he regards successful suicide completion as a measure adequate to show that men are disadvantaged. However, this is because he repeatedly fails to acknowledge that actual death is not the sole factor to be considered if one is intent on whining about who has it worse. Women, as I said, attempt suicide more often. Some see this as the classic 'cry for help' and one idea, which TMB seems to espouse also, is that because they didn't really mean to kill themselves this indicates that they are suffering less than a man who successfully commits suicide. If one moves away from the naive view that death itself at one's own hands is the important aspect in calculating who is worse off and who is suffering more, it becomes fairly easy to see that anyone who feels the need to (often repeatedly) send out a call for attention which involves harming themselves and putting themselves in direct danger is not having a very good life, and is in fact suffering very badly.

if life was so bad for these'victims ' of war they would end their lives.


An assumption pulled directly from the fundament, which shows a quite glaring ignorance of the complicated world of experiencing, suffering and values of the individual. It is quite possible to be deeply, deeply depressed, to live for years this way, and not commit suicide. In fact it is not when an individual is in the depths of their depression, when their suffering is at its absolute worst, that they take their own lives. Rather it is when they begin to lift out of it that the risk to life is the highest. People suffering intently - the most severely depressed - by and large possess neither the energy nor the mental capacity to put in place a plan and then carry it through. It is only when they regain a certain level of energy and marginally more clear thought processes that this happens. So it is in fact when the quality of life of an individual undergoes a tiny improvement that the risk of suicide is at its height.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 49
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#787  Postby Sendraks » Nov 13, 2014 11:24 am

Fallible wrote:I TMB has repeatedly shown that he regards successful suicide completion as a measure adequate to show that men are disadvantaged.


That's because he doesn't understand the issue.

I have repeatedly, and politely, suggested that if people want to discuss male suicide, that it happen in a separate thread. It is a complex issue and the mental health issues which lead people of both sexes to contemplate and commit suicide are done a gross disservice by the comments TMB makes and the overly simplistic worldview he has on this issue.

This is not a statistic anyone should be using to bash one sex or another.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15252
Age: 106
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#788  Postby Fallible » Nov 13, 2014 11:31 am

Sadly this is just the latest iteration of TMB's muddle-headed 'arguments' in this area. One is forced to either remain silent or 'give in' and tackle his gross ignorance where it occurs. I think you might as well expect the moon on a stick as for TMB to either accede to your request to start a new thread or to suddenly now understand that his behaviour is unhelpful, although where there's life there's hope. I'm still hoping the thread gets at least one split.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 49
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#789  Postby Doubtdispelled » Nov 13, 2014 11:36 am

Fallible wrote:I think this is an instance of someone being so desperate to not admit they are wrong that they begin to make clearly counter-factual 'arguments'. 'If we assume that dead people do not suffer as do the living'? One thing which would appear to be rather beyond dispute unless you believe in life after death is that the dead experience nothing at all, be that pleasure or pain. Quite clearly then, the living experience more suffering by virtue of the fact that the dead do not experience at all, and it is therefore worse for the one left alive when a loved one dies, simply because the loved one no longer 'is', and the one left behind is suffering.

Looking at suicide in particular, men successfully complete more and women attempt more. TMB has repeatedly shown that he regards successful suicide completion as a measure adequate to show that men are disadvantaged. However, this is because he repeatedly fails to acknowledge that actual death is not the sole factor to be considered if one is intent on whining about who has it worse. Women, as I said, attempt suicide more often. Some see this as the classic 'cry for help' and one idea, which TMB seems to espouse also, is that because they didn't really mean to kill themselves this indicates that they are suffering less than a man who successfully commits suicide. If one moves away from the naive view that death itself at one's own hands is the important aspect in calculating who is worse off and who is suffering more, it becomes fairly easy to see that anyone who feels the need to (often repeatedly) send out a call for attention which involves harming themselves and putting themselves in direct danger is not having a very good life, and is in fact suffering very badly.

if life was so bad for these'victims ' of war they would end their lives.


An assumption pulled directly from the fundament, which shows a quite glaring ignorance of the complicated world of experiencing, suffering and values of the individual. It is quite possible to be deeply, deeply depressed, to live for years this way, and not commit suicide. In fact it is not when an individual is in the depths of their depression, when their suffering is at its absolute worst, that they take their own lives. Rather it is when they begin to lift out of it that the risk to life is the highest. People suffering intently - the most severely depressed - by and large possess neither the energy nor the mental capacity to put in place a plan and then carry it through. It is only when they regain a certain level of energy and marginally more clear thought processes that this happens. So it is in fact when the quality of life of an individual undergoes a tiny improvement that the risk of suicide is at its height.

:clap: Excellent post, Fallible.
God's hand might have shaken just a bit when he was finishing off the supposed masterwork of his creative empire.. - Stephen King
Doubtdispelled
 
Posts: 11848

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#790  Postby Thommo » Nov 13, 2014 11:43 am

Fallible wrote:I think this is an instance of someone being so desperate to not admit they are wrong that they begin to make clearly counter-factual 'arguments'. 'If we assume that dead people do not suffer as do the living'? One thing which would appear to be rather beyond dispute unless you believe in life after death is that the dead experience nothing at all, be that pleasure or pain. Quite clearly then, the living experience more suffering by virtue of the fact that the dead do not experience at all, and it is therefore worse for the one left alive when a loved one dies, simply because the loved one no longer 'is', and the one left behind is suffering.


Well no, most living people prefer life, so it is definitely not beyond dispute. I haven't seen anyone even define suffering and something like "net balance of pleasure and pain" would certainly not be particularly unreasonable. Particularly if one is to base a comparison of better or "worse" upon it. :scratch:
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27290

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#791  Postby Fallible » Nov 13, 2014 11:45 am

Ok my mind is on other things this morning, but how does one dispute that a dead person suffers less than a living one?
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 49
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#792  Postby Sendraks » Nov 13, 2014 11:47 am

Fallible wrote:Ok my mind is on other things this morning, but how does one dispute that a dead person suffers less than a living one?


Invisible, imaginary, supernatural things that you can't measure? I'd page another forum user for his views on appropriately supernatural measures one could use to make such determinations, but this thread has been derailed enough already.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15252
Age: 106
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#793  Postby Thommo » Nov 13, 2014 11:49 am

Fallible wrote:Ok my mind is on other things this morning, but how does one dispute that a dead person suffers less than a living one?


Well, take any living person who is not suffering, because their life is more pleasurable than painful. Tell me any reasonable way in which the dead person is suffering more?

It is clearly nonsense to suggest that death is inherently preferable to life, so I repeat that without defining what is meant by "suffering" (which is not as obvious as some may assume) this whole discussion is futile.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27290

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#794  Postby Fallible » Nov 13, 2014 11:52 am

Nope, I'm not getting it. A dead person doesn't suffer or experience pleasure because they don't experience anything at all. I think I should probably come back to this later.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 49
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#795  Postby Thommo » Nov 13, 2014 11:55 am

Fallible wrote:Nope, I'm not getting it. A dead person doesn't suffer or experience pleasure because they don't experience anything at all. I think I should probably come back to this later.


So you would say that all living persons are "suffering" and therefore suffering more presumably? Ok.

Now consider someone who doesn't think it's fair to describe the state of every living person as "suffering". Presumably you can see that someone who is not suffering is not suffering more than someone else who is not suffering?
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27290

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#796  Postby Fallible » Nov 13, 2014 11:59 am

No, I wouldn't say that all living persons are suffering. Nor did I say that it's fair to describe the state of every living person as ''suffering''. I don't know where that came from. I said that the living experience more suffering than the dead by virtue of the fact that the dead experience nothing at all.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 49
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#797  Postby Doubtdispelled » Nov 13, 2014 12:01 pm

Thommo wrote:
Fallible wrote:I think this is an instance of someone being so desperate to not admit they are wrong that they begin to make clearly counter-factual 'arguments'. 'If we assume that dead people do not suffer as do the living'? One thing which would appear to be rather beyond dispute unless you believe in life after death is that the dead experience nothing at all, be that pleasure or pain. Quite clearly then, the living experience more suffering by virtue of the fact that the dead do not experience at all, and it is therefore worse for the one left alive when a loved one dies, simply because the loved one no longer 'is', and the one left behind is suffering.


Well no, most living people prefer life, so it is definitely not beyond dispute. I haven't seen anyone even define suffering and something like "net balance of pleasure and pain" would certainly not be particularly unreasonable. Particularly if one is to base a comparison of better or "worse" upon it. :scratch:

Um, did you really mean to say 'definitely not beyond dispute', Thommo?
God's hand might have shaken just a bit when he was finishing off the supposed masterwork of his creative empire.. - Stephen King
Doubtdispelled
 
Posts: 11848

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#798  Postby Thommo » Nov 13, 2014 12:02 pm

So you're saying that someone who isn't suffering (any living person who you would not say is suffering) is suffering more than someone else who is not suffering (a dead person).

I think that's a straightforward self contradiction. Clearly two people who are not suffering are suffering the same amount (not).
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27290

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#799  Postby Thommo » Nov 13, 2014 12:02 pm

Doubtdispelled wrote:Um, did you really mean to say 'definitely not beyond dispute', Thommo?


Yes.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27290

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#800  Postby Sendraks » Nov 13, 2014 12:06 pm

Thommo wrote:It is clearly nonsense to suggest that death is inherently preferable to life, so I repeat that without defining what is meant by "suffering" (which is not as obvious as some may assume) this whole discussion is futile.


I concur. In fact earlier in this thread, where claims were made by TMB about suffering, I did ask if he had any sort of empirical measure of what constituted more suffering. Given that suffering is a highly individual experience and far more complex that a crude measure of "pain tolerance" it is not worthwhile pursuing in this debate as a measure of "who has it worst".

In the context of life vs death, all that can be said is that the living can experience suffering. The dead cannot.

It would also be incorrect for anyone to conclude that "those who suffer most" are the ones who commit suicide. There is no metric to support this. There are, however, a whole host of factors at play as to whether one individual might commit suicide over another and also account for the differences between male and female rates, which Fallible has already briefly touched on these.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15252
Age: 106
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Social Sciences & Humanities

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest