Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 48 of 48

Thread: Hello =)

  1. #41
    Senior Member Manalysis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,484
    Rep Power
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by Dee View Post
    - I don't know how you interpreted "help", but what I meant was getting your input regarding the specific link between industrialization, the pursuit of power, and feminism. That's all.
    Of course. I just watch too many bad movies

    a deeper sense of how the world operates.
    Now that is a wall of expectation ... Of course I am as lost as all the rest of humanity. I try to practice a form of presentation that does not use this disorientation as a cover.

    I stand my ground on war & men, to which your reply was contradictory. You first state that "Men invented both war and peace."
    I give a different analysis of the genesis of the concept of peace. I do not advocate the quote above, which does not include the crucial "In this sense ...".

    Then you say "Of course that doesn't mean that men make war, but only that it is on the record that the majority of humans that have waged war were men."
    This statement basically says that men invented war, wage war, but do not make war. All sorts of contradictions there.
    It's the same difference as in the statement "All rapists are men, but not all men are rapists." IOW, although it has fallen to men to make war, the existence of men is not the cause of war.

    My stance on war remains that men struggle and fight the good fight, whereas states exploit men and rage war due to greed.
    There's this thing called "methodological individualism" which says that e.g. "the state" is not an entity isolated from the persons performing its offices.
    Yes, the powers that be exploit the majority of its subjects. Still, there are powers that be, that do the exploiting.

    And yes, government structures might have been primitive long ago, but since we're social creatures, we've always had some form of social hierarchy even in tribes in which people were primitive.
    Yes, but with few exceptions the state had little command structure as late as the 17. century.

    The rise and advancement of nations later on lead to an imbalanced transfer of power from majority to the exploiting, greedy minority and thus, more orchestrated wars by the state.
    One way to put it. But now I fear you are extracting your premises from your conclusions, which makes them no conclusions at all.
    A band of hunter-gatherers bashing each other over the head with sticks is the same phenomenon as WWII?
    That's making you definitions to suit your propositions; that way, you can prove anything.

    Plus, one first needs to understand the nature of war and peace in order to categorize them correctly, as two naturally-created phenomenons through which we can survive as creatures. The human world is comprised of phenomena that are unique, opposite to one another, and that can guarantee our sustenance as beings. We cannot live without war, neither can we live without peace, and the same goes for an infinite number of antagonisms that are complimentary to one another, such as illness & health, conflict & resolution, work & rest, night & day. These things were created by God, if you're a believer, or nature if you're not. We did not create these phenomena as human beings, they simply exist as we do; and we only interact with them according to our perception & circumstance.
    I do not accept "That's just the way it is" as an argument with any kind of traction.

    As for the stance on "what men and women want from one another", I think it was more your personal opinion than one that can be generalized, especially since "fear" was dragged into the equation whereas love wasn't mentioned.
    I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

    M

  2. #42
    Senior Member mr_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    5,501
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    There's this thing called "methodological individualism" which says that e.g. "the state" is not an entity isolated from the persons performing its offices.
    Yes, the powers that be exploit the majority of its subjects. Still, there are powers that be, that do the exploiting.
    M
    By which I presume you mean that there is the (A) Idea of the State, which is minimally a collection of buttons and levers which can be pressed to achieve various outcomes. And then there is (B) the people who give Animus to the State, who do the button-pushing and lever-pulling ostensibly in the name of the State, but in reality, in some blend of the ideal principle of "The State" mixed in with their own philosophies, beliefs, ideologies, agendas, and personal level of graft and corruption.
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.

  3. #43
    Senior Member Manalysis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,484
    Rep Power
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    By which I presume you mean that there is the (A) Idea of the State, which is minimally a collection of buttons and levers
    I fail to see how an idea can have buttons and levers.

    And then there is (B) the people who give Animus to the State,
    I was taught that "animus" means "strong dislike, enmity" - but obviously there is another meaning ...? The people who animate it, give it life, make it move?

    ho do the button-pushing and lever-pulling ostensibly in the name of the State,
    but in reality, in some blend of the ideal principle of "The State" mixed in with their own philosophies, beliefs, ideologies, agendas, and personal level of graft and corruption.
    That would be a failed state, failed in the sense of being co-opted as a tool for the personal agendas of those in its employ.
    With sufficient transparency and accountability, that does not necessarily overtake the entire apparatus.

    M

  4. #44
    Senior Member mr_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    5,501
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    I fail to see how an idea can have buttons and levers.


    I was taught that "animus" means "strong dislike, enmity" - but obviously there is another meaning ...? The people who animate it, give it life, make it move?
    Yes, the people who give it life and make it move.


    an·i·mus ˈanəməs/Submit noun
    1. hostility or ill feeling.
    "the author's animus toward her"
    2. motivation to do something.
    "the reformist animus came from within the Party"


    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    That would be a failed state, failed in the sense of being co-opted as a tool for the personal agendas of those in its employ.
    With sufficient transparency and accountability, that does not necessarily overtake the entire apparatus.
    M
    I don't see why you say that. It seems to me that this is a true description of all states-- at least the ones which have so far existed and have not been governed by machines. At their core, they are comprised of people who act with varying degrees of veracity, ability, faithfulness, and attention to detail, who are also people with their own personal ambitions, agendas, politics and philosophies which they layer on top of their duties whether unconsciously (in the best case) or else purposely (in the worst case), and who may be further motivated by some measure of graft, greed and corruption to some unknown purpose. Ideally, they are all good actors who are performing in the public's best interest. But that does not have to be the case, and I think the reality is a continuum of some who do and some who don't in a variety of mixes and flavors.
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.

  5. #45
    Senior Member Manalysis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,484
    Rep Power
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    Yes, the people who give it life and make it move.
    Ok.

    I don't see why you say that. It seems to me that this is a true description of all states-- at least the ones which have so far existed and have not been governed by machines. At their core, they are comprised of people who act with varying degrees of veracity, ability, faithfulness, and attention to detail, who are also people with their own personal ambitions, agendas, politics and philosophies which they layer on top of their duties whether unconsciously (in the best case) or else purposely (in the worst case), and who may be further motivated by some measure of graft, greed and corruption to some unknown purpose. Ideally, they are all good actors who are performing in the public's best interest. But that does not have to be the case, and I think the reality is a continuum of some who do and some who don't in a variety of mixes and flavors.
    All true, and that is exactly why I say what I say. As to seemingly true depictions of states, there is, if you have rainy days, a little gem of a book that gives a, well, more sweeping than actually comprehensive overview of what a state is, what it does and how it does it. It has a chapter on the hijacked state, the state in the hands of people with a (mainly paternalistic) agenda. This is not a necessary thing.

    Here's a "some good, some bad" review of it:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...an-479695.html

    M

  6. #46
    Warm welcome to you, Dee !!!

    I see you've already been inundated with conversations, and answering a lot of questions

    To flip it around - is there anything in particular that you yourself want to ask/know ??
    >>"and in other news, the Judge in the case of AVFM Vs Feminazism ruled today that the creators of 'Gender Equality' are guilty of Intent to Obtain Social Change by Deception. The Feminazi case collapsed just one day into the trial, after a 1st year medical student demonstrated that men are not, in fact, equal to women".<<


    Newbie AVFM Member, 2 days in: "My eyes, why do my eyes hurt?"

    Jaybee, cautious tone: "You've never used them before".

  7. #47
    Hi Jaybee

    Yeah, it's been quite an interesting week in here. But you know, I didn't think of this post as question and answer but more of a discussion, which I've mostly enjoyed.

    However, it looks like the conversation got sidetracked a bit. Your question made me aware of that just now :-)

    I have more observations than questions at this point, and overwhelmed by many things .. including the negativity, cynicism, and desperation I saw expressed within this forum. It wasn't directed at specific people per se, only a genuine feeling of dissatisfaction among men that remains unremedied.

    I don't know, it made me think about central things that we're generally not accustomed to think about, criticize, or try to change. Why should marital property, for instance, be divided right down the middle in most cases upon divorce? This is a fundamental issue to me, and I think that this factor alone is responsible for many negative outcomes, including setting up a flawed relationship and painting a rather bleak future for the couple right from the start.

    Plus, if we were to divide assets "equally" between divorced couples due to their "sharing a life" together in the past, then why does the mother attain child custody in most cases? Don't they share the kids too? Mothers often attain custody due to being the primary caregivers in many cases, but shouldn't that assert that fathers keep their own money due to being the primary breadwinners all along? It all boils down to the law in my opinion; it dictates how we think and behave. And the way it's constructed right now sends a very distinct message: Men are dispensable.

    I'm not saying women should be left with absolutely nothing, especially stay-at-home moms, but there's something really flawed in telling someone, "Congratulations on getting married, but if things don't work out for you .. just remember that you can leave them, get half of what they own .. plus the kids and child support on top of that." Pretty clear message here as well as laws that establish an unfair reality for many. Now if this is how the law treats married fathers, I can only imagine the horrors for many unwed dads and what they normally go through.

    And this is not about money in essence, even if it seems like it is. It's about depriving men from the sense of being needed .. which is much more important than money and has a huge impact on the relationship.

    This is one issue I was thinking about, but there's a whole lotta things that need to be seriously considered here, especially those that have been ingrained as core foundations in society.

    However, trying to advocate anything demands objectivity and integrity on your part as a forum/community, especially since some still associate "anti-feminism" with "anti-women." To be frank, I did come across a number of posts, threads, and comments that were pretty much as hateful towards women as you can get. I do realize that sometimes people tend to "feed off of each other" in forums, including the negative vibes, but these kinds of sentiments do more harm than good, misrepresent the community, and are hinderances that are keeping many deserving men from attaining justice.

    In any case, the dysfunctional relationship going on right now between genders may partially be attributed to some of the laws pushed forth by second-wave feminism. These include reproductive rights, domestic violence, marital rape, and the changes in divorce law and custody. They're very problematic as they re-defined marriage as a victim/assailant relationship, an abnormal foundation on which many laws were created.



    I'm really glad you dropped by Jaybee .. got me thinking :-)

  8. #48
    Welcome back Dee... Though I do not specifically remember you from the first go around, glad to see you hear, as you've really brought out some great discussion.

    If what I'm reading so far as correct, it appears that you take issue with Mr. E's outwardly calling Feminism a movement of hate, and you've done a very subtle 'soft power' move on him of a backhanded shaming tactic... Of which probably neither of you even noticed, and I don't fault you for that, it's just your female nature coming through, and your just acting as a feminine woman would when faced with such strong language from a man... It's a woman's nature to provide 'temperance' to men, lest they be a 'war' with everyone.

    I on the other hand, am fully on board with Mr. E calling feminism out for being the hate group that it is... But that's because I understand what HATE really is. Forgive me if you do also, but I'm going to explain my understanding of what hate actually is, just because it hasn't been clarified in any fashion, as of yet.

    I didn't learn what hate really is, until I studied Catholic theology and understanding where hate actually comes from.

    Hate is NOT the opposite of love... In fact, it is a form of 'extreme' love.. In that it manifests itself from extreme 'self' love... But not a healthy self love, but rather an extreme form or narcissistic self love...

    I doubt you'd disagree with me when it's easy to see that western culture has done well to breed extreme narcissism within it's culture, and dare I say it, females top the charts... Female vanity is a thing.

    Hate happens when ones own pride and jealousy takes over ones own mine. And that's what feminists are in a nutshell. Either they are basically 'butt hurt'... But hurt that they didn't get the genetic lottery of masculinity and suffer from the lesser of gender dimorphism, and that pisses them off, or rather they are jealous of the fact that they can't wield the hard power that Mr. E speaks of, but only are able to wield it through manipulation and soft power... by proxy of other men/state, to inflict the hard power that they seek to gain power and control...

    And this is the 'Big lie' that women purport... perpetual victimhood... One need not venture too far past the Duluth Model of power and control to see exactly what we speak of. The Duluth model has influenced each and every state in it's domestic violence laws, perpetuates the woman=good/victim, man=Bad/perpetrator of all kinds of 'violence/tyranny/control'...

    Women are going to have a difficult time seeing the 'hate' that they spew, simply because female vanity is ingrained so deeply into their core biology, that the war that Mr. E speaks of, as I envision it, is to simply state very loudly/clearly/mater of factly "NO!!!".

    He is right when he says that the only power women have is the power that men have given them.. .And when we finally just take it back, the whole mess will crumble to the ground.

    That's why so many liberals/feminists couldn't stand to see Donald Trump become president... He's a man's man, yet he's a very liberal man by current standards of political spectrum.

    It's almost as if, the kids have been bad at home all day long, and mom (Obama and his ilk) didn't have control of the family, and daddy (Trump) just pulled in the driveway from a long hard day at work... and "Daddy's home, your all in trouble now"...

    Anyway, very good discussion so far, I hope I haven't derailed it in any way, I have a tendency to do that.
    Ephesians 5 "Husbands, Love your wives like Christ loved the Church". (Wives, give your husbands something to love).
    "Wives, RESPECT your husbands". (Husbands, give your wives something to respect.)

    For a man does not truly feel loved unless his wife, mother, and children display respect to him.

    "From each MAN according to his abilty, to each WOMAN according to her need"... Allison Tienemann

    "Feminism is a HATE group... Feminists are HATEFUL people"... Mr. e

    "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."... Ronald Reagan


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •