"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)

#841  Postby Thommo » Nov 13, 2014 4:40 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Fallible wrote:
There is a meaningful sense in which we can say that some people suffer less than dead people?
This is where I apparently keep falling down. Would that not require allowing that dead people suffer?

No, if suffering can be negative, for example if we look at net suffering (i.e. some measure of suffering offset
by happiness or thriving) then someone who does not suffer can be worse off than someone who has negative net suffering

The point is that you seem to be taking a reasonable view that suffering is a one way street, but I don't think it's the only reasonable view. Which is why the consequences start to look less uncontroversial, for example when we talk about how the living must have it worse than the dead

You are conflating the objective fact of suffering with the subjective interpretation of how it feels to the one experiencing it.


No, I'm not. That has literally nothing to do with anything I've said.

In fact over multiple posts I've taken great pains to point out that the word "suffering" can connote any number of different things.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27175

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#842  Postby Thommo » Nov 13, 2014 4:45 pm

Sendraks wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:The spectrum therefore is more nuanced than you are allowing for.


I've been pretty clear in my posts that there are no empirical measures of suffering and that this is very much a personal experience. I've also covered that people can experience similar "suffering scenarios" in very different ways because of mental attitude. I've got the nuances covered thanks.


I sort of get what you mean, but it's not "empirical", what you're discussing here is that someone's subjective assessment of their experience, whether that be "pain", "discomfort" or "suffering" cannot (with current technology) be objectively verified. This isn't the same as saying it can't be empirically measured. Asking people to rate their discomfort is empirical, but not verifiable and thus subject to a lot of potential uncertainty and bias.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27175

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#843  Postby Sendraks » Nov 13, 2014 4:51 pm

Thommo wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:The spectrum therefore is more nuanced than you are allowing for.


I've been pretty clear in my posts that there are no empirical measures of suffering and that this is very much a personal experience. I've also covered that people can experience similar "suffering scenarios" in very different ways because of mental attitude. I've got the nuances covered thanks.


I sort of get what you mean, but it's not "empirical", what you're discussing here is that someone's subjective assessment of their experience, whether that be "pain", "discomfort" or "suffering" cannot (with current technology) be objectively verified. This isn't the same as saying it can't be empirically measured. Asking people to rate their discomfort is empirical, but not verifiable and thus subject to a lot of potential uncertainty and bias.


Thank you for the clarification on this. You're right, that is what I meant. I'll use "objective measure" from now on.
"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: 15242
Age: 105
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#844  Postby surreptitious57 » Nov 13, 2014 5:08 pm

Sendraks wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Since zero is the default setting for the dead too then in this scenario
the living experience no more suffering on average than the dead

The dead are not at zero on the scale of experiencing, as they cannot experience anything
Therefore they cannot experience zero suffering, as they have no means of doing so

I really only think of it in such terms as a coping mechanism for myself with regard to my own mortality. But I can see how using such language does not translate well to rational argument but shall carry on thinking of it as such as it is easy for me to understand. Since it is obviously working as it has already produced positive results then I see no reason for abandoning it even if I could. Although I do see the point you are making and agree with it in principle
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10203

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#845  Postby TMB » Nov 14, 2014 1:09 am

DarthHelmet86 wrote: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 have made no claims the living do not suffer, because they certainly do, and for some it is more suffering than they can bear so they end it. For people who have no hope of recovery, who are suffering pain, and have no quality of life we sometimes offer palliative care just to mitigate the suffering. A some stage a high proportion of these that can still focus, they would rather be dead. You appear to be reading something into my posts that Inhave not said.
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#846  Postby TMB » Nov 14, 2014 1:27 am

Sendraks wrote:
Thommo wrote: it doesn't establish that this is what TMB meant, does it?


One might as well try to catch a ghost as attempt to TMB down to a specific meaning.


Sure as hell my meanings have been distorted by some idiotic and disturbing assumptions. I do not believe the dead suffer. I do believe the living suffer and can suffer greatly. My point is that it has been said that we have a deep and abiding desire not to be dead. This means that deth by its nature should be measured as the least ideal outcome, and for this reason any measure of advantage needs to acknowledge this. I would say the value of life diminishes with age, so death of the young and vital is a greater loss than the death of an aged, sick person. I will get back and clean up the rest of the irrational scepticism later.
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#847  Postby TMB » Nov 14, 2014 10:35 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
TMB wrote:
You are also arguing that when your loved ones die, it is worse for the one left alive. This sounds a bit like Hillary Clinton's view that women are the real victims when men get killed in war because they are left alive to suffer. If we assume that dead people do not suffer as do the living, if life was so bad for these victims of war they would end their lives

Suicide is not the only option for someone experiencing suffering so your assumption that anyone who does experience it in the above scenario has no choice but to end their life is demonstrably wrong. Since human beings can experience incredible quantity and quality of non life threatening suffering without resorting to the ultimate solution as a means of eradicating it Of course some do but some is not the same as all. I disagree with Hillary here as it is not only women who are bereaved by war as men obviously are too. Now would you suggest the same for them if they experienced that type of suffering too. And if you would not then why not


Your response misses the fundamental and overwhelming simple question. Is it better to be dead or alive? Do we think the state of life is better than the state of death or not, and which state would we rather choose. It does not mean or imply that life is always a good place, there is plenty of suffering and I have doubt there are people who would rather be dead who cannot end their lives and I suspect this is due to the finality and our deep and abiding desire not to be dead. The difference is that living people have some degree of choice, while the dead do not, in fact they (as has been so excruciatingly debated by some here) cannot even be said to have nothing, because things that no longer exist cannot be said to 'have' anything.

Of course Hillary is talking rubbish, as you say dead soldiers leave male companions, but my point was that she positions living people (at least the female ones) as being more victim than dead soldiers. So if I even understood your last question, I suspect I am indifferent to this.
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#848  Postby Sendraks » Nov 14, 2014 10:45 am

TMB wrote:Your response misses the fundamental and overwhelming simple question. Is it better to be dead or alive?


I don't think any is arguing is that, for most, life is definitely better than being dead. However, this simple statement falls down when applied to specific scenarios. Men who sign up to become soldiers, in the modern era, do so knowing that they may be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice. For anyone signing up with a wife and/or children, they do so knowing what they are prepared to sacrifice. Accepting that, as a partner, is not an easy thing to live with.

TMB wrote: It does not mean or imply that life is always a good place, there is plenty of suffering and I have doubt there are people who would rather be dead who cannot end their lives and I suspect this is due to the finality and our deep and abiding desire not to be dead.


As Fall has explained, in those suffering from depression, there is a point where even having the energy to end ones own life becomes impossible. They are beyond choice at this point.

TMB wrote:The difference is that living people have some degree of choice, while the dead do not, in fact they (as has been so excruciatingly debated by some here) cannot even be said to have nothing, because things that no longer exist cannot be said to 'have' anything.


Well the question behind Hilary's statement is one of "Is ongoing suffering better than no suffering at all?" Which is a pretty loaded statement, because it precludes the possibility that one's life might get better.

There is an interesting discussion to be had here, but as this is one that has nothing to do with feminism or equality (the same as male suicide), it should be split off into it's own thread.
"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: 15242
Age: 105
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#849  Postby Sendraks » Nov 14, 2014 10:48 am

TMB wrote:. I would say the value of life diminishes with age, so death of the young and vital is a greater loss than the death of an aged, sick person.


You would say that (because it is central to your argument and therefore biased).
An old person, perhaps one who has contributed significantly to society in terms of taxation, their employment and other activities, would feel differently. This is one of the reasons that we have laws to protect the elderly from discrimination, because they are entitled to be treated as (and valued as much) as a human being as anyone else.

TMB wrote:. I will get back and clean up the rest of the irrational scepticism later.

There has been no irrational scepticism from the other posters on this topic. Just because you disagree with what people have said, doesn't make their comments irrational. So can it with the ad-homs.
"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: 15242
Age: 105
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#850  Postby TMB » Nov 14, 2014 11:01 am

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Men having shorter lives is a problem, I haven't seen anyone here say it wasn't a problem. Or anyone here argue that because women live longer that they suffer more and are worse off. TMB is the only one beating that strawman and assigning it to other people.


No idea where you came up with this. Just like you do in the next paragraph people are putting words in my mouth.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:
TMB has said that because people who survive after their partner dies (in this case men who die in military service) do not kill themselves then they are not really suffering or real victims.


I have not said either that surviving partners, mothers, sisters etc do not suffer, or are not victims. How is it possible for you to read this into my posts? The question is simple. Do we think the dead soldiers are in a better place than they leave alive, don't forget to include the soldiers that might have taken hours or weeks to die from their wounds. Neither party is in a good place but I am betting that most people would rather be alive than dead.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:So thus men suffer more by having a shorter life span even though military service is only a part of that. Men dying in conflict is hardly a feminist issue, I suspect most people here who say they are feminists or not would like to see women able to serve alongside men in combat roles.


I think this is a political idea. Even in non lethal but still dangerous jobs women do not seem to be voting with their feet to get into the sort of dangerous jobs usually undertaken by men. Like women are allowed to box or do MMA, in realityt it does not sem to appeal to women as much as it does not men. I accept there is cultural pressure for women not to do these things, but culture reflects who men and women are.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:
This isn't out of some desire to ensure that more women die but instead just to ensure the women who would like to join the military are capable of trying it.


Do you imagine the 18 old boys going off to war thought they were gong to die? What a joke. They were going to seek glory, the reality of death was not clear to a bunch of ignorant, idealistic kids. If they knew they would be rotting in the trenches following unimaginable fear and horror of war, they might not have been so quick to enlist.


DarthHelmet86 wrote:Of course TMB has before said something that sounded a lot like he thought women would be incapable of filling the military combat role. So lets clear that up, who hear thinks that women should be able to join the military? And who here thinks that men having shorter lives (on average) is a problem that some amount of time should be spent on fixing as much as possible?


In general compared to men, the ability to kill and be killed seems to apply more to men, in civilian life as well as in war. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. We do see female suicide bombers and we have front line women in some western militia. The test will be when they are dying in the same numbers as men are. The physical tests for Australian military are lower for women than for men. Does this tell you they have confidence in their 'equal' ability. Will I be told that like in tennis and athletics, because they have different physiology, they should only be allowed to fight other women in the enemy army?
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#851  Postby Sendraks » Nov 14, 2014 11:24 am

TMB wrote:
Do you imagine the 18 old boys going off to war thought they were gong to die? What a joke. They were going to seek glory, the reality of death was not clear to a bunch of ignorant, idealistic kids. If they knew they would be rotting in the trenches following unimaginable fear and horror of war, they might not have been so quick to enlist.


What prompts you to write such offensive bullshit?
Yes, we all get that teens do have something of an immortality complex, but the armed forces of the western world do take plains to explain to their recruits what being a soldier entails. It is made clear when a soldier signs up, what the worst possible outcome for them is. A professional military wants their soldiers to be fully conversant in the risks they face, as this makes them more effective soldiers and reduces casualties.

Any military outfit which does not give its recruits a full understanding of what combat entails is clearly not a professional force.

TMB wrote:
The physical tests for Australian military are lower for women than for men. Does this tell you they have confidence in their 'equal' ability.

Does the Australian military allow women to fill the same rolls as men? If not, it makes no sense that the physical tests should be equal.

If yes, then I'd say the Australian military is dropping the ball in terms of assessing the physical fitness of their frontline troops.
"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: 15242
Age: 105
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#852  Postby DarthHelmet86 » Nov 14, 2014 12:07 pm

The Australian military is only just allowing women into combat roles, it is supposed to be allowed fully by 2016 and was announced in 2013. I looked up the difference in entrance test for males and women and there is a difference...one difference. Women are asked to do less push ups, that is it everything else is the same.

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/fitness/

Bottom of that page lists the entrance tests. And that is all they are, tests to see that the person meets a base level of fitness. Once they are in the military it is a different ball game. Reading some news reports it says that originally women were given more time on internal tests after being inside the actual military. But that has changed and they are now expected to pass under the same conditions as men.

The one area women are still not allowed to apply is special forces units, but that is said to be cleared up sometimes in 2014. Most women will fail to join the SAS or Commandos and I can say this with absolute certainty that no matter how tough and fit they are they will fail. Because most men fail as well only the best of the best pass and plenty of the fittest men are broken by the tests in place for those roles in mere days, mainly because the tests are designed to break people without the mental willpower to preform under extreme duress. Some women will manage to pass those tests just like some men do.

Once again TMB is speaking bullshit. Because not enough women, according to him, sign up women must not be suited for it. It is nothing but a catch 22, if they don't sign up it is because they would never pass if they do pass then there aren't enough of them doing it to really count.
I. This is Not a Game
II. Here and Now, You are Alive
User avatar
DarthHelmet86
RS Donator
 
Posts: 10344
Age: 35
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#853  Postby TMB » Nov 17, 2014 12:06 am

DarthHelmet86 wrote:The Australian military is only just allowing women into combat roles, it is supposed to be allowed fully by 2016 and was announced in 2013. I looked up the difference in entrance test for males and women and there is a difference...one difference. Women are asked to do less push ups, that is it everything else is the same.

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/fitness/

Bottom of that page lists the entrance tests. And that is all they are, tests to see that the person meets a base level of fitness. Once they are in the military it is a different ball game. Reading some news reports it says that originally women were given more time on internal tests after being inside the actual military. But that has changed and they are now expected to pass under the same conditions as men.

The one area women are still not allowed to apply is special forces units, but that is said to be cleared up sometimes in 2014. Most women will fail to join the SAS or Commandos and I can say this with absolute certainty that no matter how tough and fit they are they will fail. Because most men fail as well only the best of the best pass and plenty of the fittest men are broken by the tests in place for those roles in mere days, mainly because the tests are designed to break people without the mental willpower to preform under extreme duress. Some women will manage to pass those tests just like some men do.

Once again TMB is speaking bullshit. Because not enough women, according to him, sign up women must not be suited for it. It is nothing but a catch 22, if they don't sign up it is because they would never pass if they do pass then there aren't enough of them doing it to really count.


Two of my kids are doing the military selection into AUD armed forces, at an interview its clear they do not expect many females to end up on the front line. The initial entry shows they recognise the different physiology, especially in upper body strength

Just like things like Wimbledon and the Olympics and most sport/athletic pursuits, you might get a single woman in every top 100 males. Unless they set up a different combat force so that women can only fight women on the other side, you will get an exception every now and then. Despite the less personal nature of combat in modern wars, there is still plenty confronting ugliness in war, I just dont think women will take the combat aspect in any numbers.

As for Sendraks view of the army making sure the soldiers know exactly what they are letting themselves in for, this is idealistic. Its not possible at entrance time to convey what it will be like in a muddy trench with a bullet in the guts. Training will give a better idea, but at that point they have mostly broken down the individual and rebuilt an obedient killing machine.
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#854  Postby DarthHelmet86 » Nov 17, 2014 6:21 am

No one cares what you think, women are doing it (and the fact that there is still a culture of women not being capable is part of why the Aus military is being forced to shape up). They are in the US military and are doing fine in combat roles. They faced resistance and still do from people unable to accept that women are capable of doing the job. But there they are doing it. The same thing is happening in the Australian military, the culture is still being broken down people are still stuck with the idea that women wont or can't do the frontline combat work. They are wrong and will be shown to be wrong. And once again the intro physical tests are only to judge base fitness, once you are in the military you must pass the same tests and women are able to do that.

Also it is totally possible at the interview part to express the risk of life, I should know I did it and they explained it very very well. Even to the point of the Corporal talking to me about how joining at that time would mean I would most likely be sent to Iraq. The military does not train soldiers to be killing machines either, but that is just more bollocks that you will leave sitting there.
I. This is Not a Game
II. Here and Now, You are Alive
User avatar
DarthHelmet86
RS Donator
 
Posts: 10344
Age: 35
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#855  Postby Nicko » Nov 17, 2014 10:07 am

DarthHelmet86 wrote:And once again the intro physical tests are only to judge base fitness, once you are in the military you must pass the same tests and women are able to do that.


It's a distinction that many don't understand. The initial standards are only to establish that everything is in working order: a basic, somewhat-higher-than-average level of fitness. This just means different things for men and women, so of course there are separate standards. When it comes to specific assignments, the standards are objective and job-specific.

There is of course the question of whether more needs to be done to help women meet the higher objective standards required by combat positions. Here's 2nd Lt. Sage Santangelo's account of her attempt to pass the USMC's Infantry Officer Course.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8641
Age: 45
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#856  Postby Nicko » Nov 17, 2014 10:18 am

TMB wrote:Despite the less personal nature of combat in modern wars, there is still plenty confronting ugliness in war, I just dont think women will take the combat aspect in any numbers.


My impression, from the article I just posted and other sources, is that the primary obstacle to women qualifying for front-line combat positions is more a purely physical matter of being able to move themselves over distance X, in time Y, carrying load Z.

The "confronting ugliness" of war is a very real concern that affects the psychological survival of any troops exposed to combat*; it's not something that having a penis helps you deal with.





* Particularly given the massive increase in the frequency of combat that active troops have seen over the last century, combined with the added stress of seeking an implacable enemy hidden within a civilian population.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8641
Age: 45
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#857  Postby Fallible » Nov 17, 2014 10:57 am

However there are lots of jobs in which ''ugliness' or traumatic sights are involved, such as police officer, nurse, doctor or paramedic, all of which women manage to 'deal with' to the same extent that men do.
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: 48
Female

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

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#858  Postby Sendraks » Nov 17, 2014 11:05 am

TMB wrote:As for Sendraks view of the army making sure the soldiers know exactly what they are letting themselves in for, this is idealistic..


It is the understanding of every friend and family member who applied to join the armed forces. I know, because I asked them about it.
"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: 15242
Age: 105
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#859  Postby TMB » Nov 17, 2014 11:22 am

Fallible wrote:However there are lots of jobs in which ''ugliness' or traumatic sights are involved, such as police officer, nurse, doctor or paramedic, all of which women manage to 'deal with' to the same extent that men do.


Women are certainly more engaged in these activities, however the ugliness in military, police, firefighting and other dangerous activities is different to medicine due to the direct risks involved. In military terms the casualty rate is 2.5% women from these current US military figures,
mhttp://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22452.pdf

The police figures are 10% women, however this is still just 1 female in 10.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press- ... -assaulted

The figures in other high risk activities are similar and ths is quantified by the lower life expectancy than women because they engage in more high risk behavior than women do.

Only exceptional women del with this the way many men do. These roles are not the rule for women at this stage.
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#860  Postby TMB » Nov 17, 2014 11:24 am

Nicko wrote:
TMB wrote:Despite the less personal nature of combat in modern wars, there is still plenty confronting ugliness in war, I just dont think women will take the combat aspect in any numbers.


My impression, from the article I just posted and other sources, is that the primary obstacle to women qualifying for front-line combat positions is more a purely physical matter of being able to move themselves over distance X, in time Y, carrying load Z.

The "confronting ugliness" of war is a very real concern that affects the psychological survival of any troops exposed to combat*; it's not something that having a penis helps you deal with.





* Particularly given the massive increase in the frequency of combat that active troops have seen over the last century, combined with the added stress of seeking an implacable enemy hidden within a civilian population.


I disagree. There is plenty of literature supporting mens higher propensity for risky behavior than women. To argue differently ignores the effects of biology on our behavior. Do you want some evidence for this or can you find it yourself?
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Social Sciences & Humanities

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest