|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Men's rights can't be separated from economics
PolishKnight wrote:
I don't think women are judged by the human mind more favorably than men when we look at humanity in a historical and international context. For example, how favorably are women judged as warriors? I'm sure they are judged more favorably relative to their contributions. Many of the things we complain of today date long before feminism, and how did feminist laws get passed - by men - in the first place? Regarding the labor market affecting men more than women: In a society where there's a very limited or no welfare state, women are generally more disproportionately affected since men can live on less. But the effect I mention, that women can more easily be supported through marriage etc., is at least as strong there. Even if men can theoretically live on less if they don't have families, practically that isn't relevant to how traditional society works. As most women are now painfully discovering, it's not so easy to avoid work by marrying a man as they have been taught. If women find it difficult, that is almost always because they have unreasonable standards, not because it is inherently hard. Indeed, it's amusing how feminists have passed IMBRA because foreign women demonstrate just how lousy American women are at finding decent men to marry. That's just changing the subject. The point is not whether American women _do_ escape work by marrying, but whether they _could_. If men are not equal socially, there are some above and some below, and those below can not be free. A free man is bound only to those obligations that his fellows also are. So is Donald Trump not free if he pays more in income taxes than his colleagues either as an absolute number or percentage? Silly. Everyone is liable to the obligation of income tax. Rich people still end up with more after taxes, so they are not less free financially. Of course there are many other ways to argue against taxes, but this is not one. I wasn't arguing against taxes. I was merely illustrating how literal or creative interpretations of wording can lead to absurd and "silly" conclusions. I don't think so. Your example did not demonstrate that, as I pointed out. I am trying to propose that capitalism is not compatible with freedom or equality. The Devil is in the details as they say and when people use terms like "free" and "equal", they often adjust and tune the definition to the point where it means the opposite. Such as conservatives and libertarians do! Now you're either insulting my intelligence or are in extreme denial. The most egregious example of doublespeak is the left advocating discrimination against working class men as "privileged" and preferences for upper class white women as "oppressed." Sure, but competing to see who's worse is silly. Again, your side is also guilty, and as long as you pretend otherwise you words can have no weight with me. Andrew, no need to repeat the slogan that socialism is about making life better for the common man. That's been the slogan since back in the early 1900's. And it's still true. Hahahaha! You really either believe that or you think I'm dumb enough to not challenge you on it. It's true by definition. Anyone (knowingly) advocating policies contrary to that can not be a socialist. The left hasn't admired working class men's values for the past 50 years. OK, but you should be careful about the term 'working-class' - it may connote things that are obsolete, such as the idea that the man that works in an office is somehow different from he that works in a factory. Functionally, almost everyone is working-class. Just the opposite: they are openly anti-heterosexual, pro-feminist, anti-manufacturing (since they only favor "green" office work), etc. They view working class men with contempt as being a bunch of stupid rubes and that's their standard ad-hominem argument. Most of everyone is stupid, so that's not surprising! Trying to sell me that this is a working class mens' party in light of their current agenda is, again, laughable. But not entirely surprising. I am not selling that. I admit that neither party seems to be at all promising. Well, what do you propose to do about it? We need to get control of the government in order to enforce more pro-male policies. Strangely enough, I agree with you. If any politician is running on a pro-male agenda one way or the other, I'd support them. However, I doubt the left is going to put sincere candidates up simply because that would risk alienating their core constituencies which are as bound tightly together as, say, Radical Islam and the Democratic party. :-) Which gets me to thinking... We have to respect women at least for voting according to their perceived self-interests. You're still trying to sell me commie cool aid. The kool-aid is that ticking Republican every other year is going to ultimately fix everything. I don't see much hope at all, but I do know it's only possible if enough men are aware of the problem and what needs to be done. It would be more credible, based upon the behavior of leftism, to claim that socialism is about making life better for RICH PEOPLE. The Republicans are at least as bad in this sense, so while this might be a good reason for a third party, it can't justify voting Republican. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/bu...ml?_r=2&pagewa nted=2&hp "As it has evolved, the company has used, and in some cases pioneered, aggressive strategies to lower its tax bill. In the mid-1980s, President Ronald Reagan overhauled the tax system after learning that G.E. ‹ a company for which he had once worked as a commercial pitchman ‹ was among dozens of corporations that had used accounting gamesmanship to avoid paying any taxes." This is one good thing that happened under Reagan, sure. But it didn't go far enough, and there are still corporations doing that. It's a mess. But Reagan's tax policies overall were certainly not anti-rich people. However, I'll throw you a bone and a genuine offer of compromise: If the left ever does it's act together WRT men (highly doubtful), I'll highly consider jumping ship. I'll consider re-examining socialism after the Soviet style we have here in the states is defeated or collapses and feminism is in the dustbin of history. We don't really have any socialism here. Jewish cultural Marxism should not be confused with it. However, in both cases, I'm highly doubtful that it can work since socialist politicians tend to put their own self-interests ahead of that of their constituencis making the claimed noble goal of socialism elusive. All politicians do that, don't they? What makes you think yours are superior? Andrew Usher |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
David A. Smith (DLZC of sci.astro), prejudistic human rights crimesof stalking, prejudistic semitism of hate crimes, discriminations of educatedpeople on all counts dismissing human rights really fast. Semitism will havejustice on human rights ground | gb[_3_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 7th 08 09:02 PM |
Pluto, an excluded planet with Moons in a Solar System of Rights. Rights will solve healthcare. | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | March 9th 07 08:00 PM |