Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
It’s not about “not all men” or whatever ******ed libfem slogan you want to throw around. It’s about her point being fundamentally wrong and immoral.
The only point I made was that “men are natural protectors of women” and “men are the primary perpetrators of violence against women” can’t both be true.
And one claim is already proven with data, so we know which one is false.
If you ask men what they protect women from, they will say other men. So, yourselves basically. Well thanks so much for that!
The only point I made was that “men are natural protectors of women” and “men are the primary perpetrators of violence against women” can’t both be true.
And one claim is already proven with data, so we know which one is false.
If you ask men what they protect women from, they will say other men. So, yourselves basically. Well thanks so much for that!
First I don’t think those propositions are well-formed because they don’t say what they are quantifying over. If you quantify over the group “men” to pick out those men that perpetuate violence against women, there’s no logical contradiction between those people perpetuating violence and some other group of men you’re quantifying over protecting against violence.
For instance in a war with two sides, both sides will primarily have male soldiers, but there’s no contradiction in saying “men are the primary invaders of the country” and “men are the primary defenders of the country”.
So is there some kind of symmetry breaker between the war analogy and the violence analogy that you can pick out?
I really don’t give a damn what you think , CRD, because I don’t respect your intellect.
Not to make light of it but I know for a fact it's not all true. Don't tell anyone, but we knew just how much nitro we could add to our racing kart fuel or how long we could soak our tires in solvent so as not to get caught. Like they say in the racing world: it's only cheating if you get caught.
I don't think you do know that for an actual fact.
At least she's not a Harry Reasoner*
*this is a person who was on 60 minutes a hundred years ago
The only point I made was that “men are natural protectors of women” and “men are the primary perpetrators of violence against women” can’t both be true. And one claim is already proven with data, so we know which one is false.If you ask men what they protect women from, they will say other men. So, yourselves basically. Well thanks so much for tha
A woman who is accompanied by a man is less likely to face the usual bother from other men. If she's alone, and the bother occurs, either a woman or a man (or multiple examples of either) might step in, if available, to deter or repel. In some cases the presence of a man might be advantageous in seeing off the botherer, though of course you don't want too much antler-locking going on if you can help it.
There’s a good reason why pubs in roughish areas like to have a landlady behind the bar.
Lol I think you’re misreading the tone of this conversation
It was a mean joke, just a spin on something frequently said to women in spots like this. Anyway, you’re probably a very pretty boy, ok?
Nailed the dull part imo
The only point I made was that “men are natural protectors of women” and “men are the primary perpetrators of violence against women” can’t both be true.
And one claim is already proven with data, so we know which one is false.
If you ask men what they protect women from, they will say other men. So, yourselves basically. Well thanks so much for that!
It’s a false dichotomy. That statistic only tells us who commits violence, not who prevents it. Without men protecting women, violence against women could easily be an order of magnitude higher, but certainly not lower.
I wouldn’t even assume the violent crime rate was lower among the Amazons. Males have higher variance in aggression, meaning a small subset can be extremely protective or deterrent--something a female only society would likely have far fewer of. So the rate of violence against women could very well be higher in an all female world.
In fairness to CN, it is virtually impossible to have a discussion about this sort of issue without talking about general group characteristics, even though characteristics among members necessarily vary. I'm sure she has made this point.
Why in Sam Hill would you sure she has made that point? On this particular topic, CN isn't particularly nuanced.
I think she hates terrible men (which, in fairness, is most of them). And for women, they can't know easily who the good ones are, so they have to mistrust all of them. So, it's both all and not all men - but, in practice, it has to be all men.For instance, I have never once felt like Crossnerd hates me, but that comes from the fact that I don't identify with terrible men more
Hating 'terrible men' is almost a tautology.
That said, I don't think CN even hates me, so you have a valid point.
