I didn’t see any argument, just a mishmash of obviously false ‘facts’ such as the idea that families are ‘built’ (what’s that supposed to mean) by females. Maybe you live in some sort of lesbian ‘community’ ?
You make ridiculous blanket statements such as “women are status obsessed” and consider that an ‘argument’ ? Get a grip.
Regardless that you think his posts are crazy, you haven’t made a logical criticism. Your just saying that his posts are ridiculous.
Your obviously very heated. Chill. Take a breath.
Ad hominem
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
This isn’t an argument. Your just saying his argument is outlandish. Appeal to Ridicule, essentially which is a form of " Argument from from personal Incredulity."
Saying a claim is a joke doesn’t make it false.
On this website we say all sorts of outlandish things. Society can exist without states, drug prohibition does not ensure that society is safe from collapse, printing money not only causes but is inflation.
Same as above.
Appeal to Ridicule, essentially which is a form of " Argument from from personal Incredulity."
That isn’t a fact, because you haven’t proven that the former is as false as the later.
Not sure what logical fallacy that is called.
Callling Byzantines Stereotyping Racist is a Heavy Ad Hominem.
Although I suppose the rest of the above may be considered an argument. Although the conservative thing, where you attempting to call him a hypocrite …I don’t know if that works… because i don’t know if Byzantine is big on the family, and even if he is a conservative, he may not be big on the family. klan accusation is also an Ad Hominem.
"
Appeal to Ridicule, essentially which is a form of " Argument from from personal Incredulity."
I really didn’t mean anything to be offensive or even controversial. My thoughts were kind of quick and scrambled, and I should have done something more along the lines of a topic on gender and the state. Writing a topic called “women and the state” does seem very harsh and idiotic, I will admit to that.
But just look at the biological differences between men and women. Men are by far the more dispensible of the 2 sexes (If women fought in wars like men it would be harder to reproduce, for example). A man’s “function” is to reproduce as quickly as possible, a woman’s’ “function” of reproduction can at best only be carried out once every nine months, it just makes more sense for them to be more discriminating when breeding. A secondary trait of males is that they are indeed physically stronger, they have been bred to play the role of protector/hunter. That is just a fact. It’s not evil, it’s why we exist the way we do. Yes, we have in ways evolved past primitivism, but I still think the roots are there and can’t be ignored. Men are still driven by sex, obtaining status, and put high value on physically attractive women , it is part of their make up. Men are still the more aggressive and physically stronger of the two species. There are differences, and if a government starts catering to one sex what are the consequences? It perverts the market correct?
Now I think this has gone a bit off topic, it is mostly my fault for a bad heading and only focusing on 1 gender (it really does seem misogynistic). But yes, the state can be just as evil with men too. Perhaps Fascism, or holding women to secondary status, or pre arranged marriages are more masculine appeals to government. Either way, I am still at the moment kind of fascinated by the idea of gender role and the state.
Maybe it’s because one can’t make logical criticism of crazy stuff.
The original claim is not an argument either. It’s an outlandish baseless claim. No different than claiming (not ‘proving’) that the earth is flat.
Indeed. What Byzantine and co. say is ridiculous.
Byzantine is a racist. Oh wait, you call that ‘stereotyping’ - I guess that’s newspeak ?
Oh thank you…
Here’s is the first baseless assertion made by byzantine
I hope we agree that families are some sort of voluntary association between men and women and so are ‘built’ by women and and men ?
What else is there to add in order to show that byzantine’s unfounded assertion (not argument) is false ?
And a similar analysis can be applied to the rest/most of byzantine’s ‘arguments.’ I’m afraid they are…crank sociology.
Another thing real quick Juan, look at another species with 2 sexes, they all have different priorities in there sexes. There is a division of labor so to speak
I personally don’t find it offensive. Also I’m not being politically correct and saying that we should not belittle women or something like that.
What bothers me is that as far as the theory goes, it is, I would say, 100 % wrong.
Take this for instance
OK. Do we agree that WAR is an exclusively masculine affair ? And, are you familiar with the view that libertarianism and militarism are polar opposites ?
So, if we’re going to make sexist arguments it seems they would lead to blaming tyranny on men rather than on women. But the point is, how useful are these generalizations ?
I will admit that liberterianism is 100% opposed to war (or at least aggression) that is part of its appeal to me. As far as war being exclusivly male, that’s a little tricky. In general, yes. But, for a very very quick look, there are civs out there where there were female warriors such as Sparta, and if the Greek myth has any truth to it the Amazons. But the real aggresivness, I think, comes more from the testosterone, so women who have unusually high testosterone could be pretty aggresive.
As far as how useful the generalizations are, I really don’t know yet. It could be a complete waste of time it could be very important. I usually find stereotyped things interesting so I tend to dwell on them a bit, that’s just how I am. I do think this though, scince your criticisms have helped me to crystalize my thoughts a little better, I do see the state and gender roles to still be important. You could even ask does the state help promote/ create certain gender roles, hold certain aspects back etc. And are there certain things inherent in a gender that can be easier seduced by the government? I think these are important questions.
One can also spin the whole story around that women being family oriented are also more future oriented and therefore more inclined to productive as opposed to parasitic societies. Guess who made that argument in a different context. And as for gender roles &c., it’s pretty much nurture and nature, not either/or (not that you specifically claimed it is.)
You had me there. Any hint ?
The Hoppean one on homosexuals and TP (presumably if women are more family oriented they’re also more future oriented.)
Great great point, I wholeheartedly agree. A reason though could be because plausably on a primitive level men stay with women because the woman is more discriminate and needs a man to stay around so they can focus on keeping the child alive and healthy, a man (who wishes to establish “breeding rights”) who wishes to stay with that women uses a strategy to stay around and provides valuable services to the woman while she raises the child. That is not to say that we evolved quit a bit past that point, but if that is how it got there it should be respected and seen as important into forming the human race as we know it.
Now with me agreeing that women are more future and family oriented, an establishment of a state can appeal to anyone who is more future or family oriented with vicious propaganda and violent programs. There is a stereotype, for example, of angry mothers pressuring the government to pass overly protective laws. And the government does pass an awful lot of overly protective laws. This isn’t because the women trying to protect their family are evil (far from it). It’s because there is a very seductive, evil instution that exists and has very effectivly used propaganda to establish itself as the solution to all of life’s problems in the world.
The nature/nurture thing is complex, and it is still a pretty intense (and very interesting) debate. But to not get too much into it I tend to agree it is a combo of both, but to ignore nature you are asking for trouble. I actually fall a bit more on the" nature" side in a way.
P.S. Juan, why the hell was I watching Dr. Phil? I feel dirty.
Which has the bizarre implication that people with low TP are prone to be inclined to statism, but I suppose the argument could work if it were held that state propaganda effectively convinced them that the best means to a productive society is, paradoxically, one burdened by a massive parasite.
Well I have an essay do this evening on women’s role in society (have just started it :P). I’ll try answering you with some of the research I’ve done.
During the early 20th century, progressives worked extensively to force women and children out of the work place (making it harder for them to survive on their own). Here’s the 1921 Manual of Labor Laws (as it relates to women). Even progressive women lobbied to force women out of the labor force.
In custody battles, mothers are given custodial rights about 80% of the time and 80% of those mothers are awarded support from their ex-spouse. The state has also subsidized children for welfare recipients, and 2/3s of single mothers work less than full time. I wouldn’t say the state has replaced the husband as the breadwinner, but it has certainly reduced the need of a husband role for single mothers.
Yes, but exactly what the correlation is would be hard to show.
There really is no need to be hostile or sarcastic. My lack of responses to others in this thread does not imply that I’m “against you” or “for Byzantine”. Your particular posts just happened to jump out at me.
Also, would it be so hard to admit when your wrong? I’m no expert in logic or logical fallacies, but that is essentially ingrained in Austrian Methodological though so would it hurt to use it? Or even try?
Juan Wrote:
“Maybe it’s because one can’t make logical criticism of crazy stuff.”
Thats the point of logic and logical fallacies. Through reason one deconstructs, or argues against “crazy stuff”.
Juan Wrote:
“The original claim is not an argument either. It’s an outlandish baseless claim. No different than claiming (not ‘proving’) that the earth is flat.”
The original claim is irrelevant… doesn’t matter if it is or isn’t an argument. I’m making an argument against. I’m saying that your not making an argument, and then at least pointing out the the types of “non-arguments” your making, and when they are not prima facie, explaining how they are.
Also, Two wrongs don’t make a right. Hence, do not reply to crazy stuff with crazy stuff. And please stop appealing to the majority with your false analogy. You cannot equate what Byzantine has written to what we know is already false. Why?
Because the following…
“I think claim X is retarded. And we all know Claim Y is retarded. And really Claim X is no different then Claim Y. Therefore Claim X is retarded???”
You haven’t proved anything. All you have done is say Claim X is just as retarded as claim Y. I can say that about anything, doesn’t make it so.
Juan Wrote:
Indeed. What Byzantine and co. say is ridiculous.
That’s still not an argument. That still ridiculing their statements. In essence you still haven’t proved anything.
Juan Wrote:
“Byzantine is a racist. Oh wait, you call that ‘stereotyping’ - I guess that’s newspeak ?”
Ah your not even addressing my point. It has nothing to do with newspeak. I can even conceed that they are the same, and I will admit how you could see them as the same. However, by using the term “Racist” you are hoping to deconstruct his arguments, that is, his argument is invalid because of his “moral character”. Thats an Ad Hominem.
I don’t care if Hitler comes on this forum and says 2+2=5!!
And then you say NO! 2+2=4. And your wrong because your a jew hater and mass murder!!!
That doesn’t work, its not a a valid argument in this case.
Instead you should explain why 2+2=4 not 5. His moral character in this instance is irrelevant.
Juan Wrote:
"Here’s is the first baseless assertion made by byzantine
Also, men build hierarchies; women build families.
I hope we agree that families are some sort of voluntary association between men and women and so are ‘built’ by women and and men?"
Yes in essence, families are a voluntary association (although I’m sure plenty of men and women may disagree about how voluntary it is, although they are not coerced usually in the Austrian Sense) between men and women. However, traditionally speaking men and women do have a different role in the family. And predominately the mothers role is much larger in terms of direct contact with the children. I think the reason is not only culture, but also genetics and psychology. The mother goes through a traumatic experience which forms a unique bond with the children which the husband can never attain. Furthermore, as already noted, man is designed to impregnate vast amounts of women right up until the end of his life. Women dedicate roughly 9 months to carrying the child, and they are only fertile at various periods throughout the year, and relative to the mans ability to impregnate, can only give birth and raise a finite amount of children.
Juan Wrote:
“What else is there to add in order to show that byzantine’s unfounded assertion (not argument) is false ?”
I don’t think you’ve proven your case.
Juan Wrote:
"And a similar analysis can be applied to the rest/most of byzantine’s ‘arguments.’ I’m afraid they are…crank sociology."
Well I don’t know Byzantine or his arguments. But your still not making an argument. Just name calling. Basically your argument is Prima facie, that is"…on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts."
Well, I’m not convinced. So I’ll move on to looking at Byzantines posts. : )
Well reasoned loweleif.
And I didn’t deny it. Byzantine’s claims (not arguments) are ridiculous and I am underlining the fact that they are ridiculous. I’m sorry if you don’t like it. Out of curiosity, why ? Do you happen to agree with his outlandish claims ?
No. Byzantine’s ‘insights’ are based on ‘racist philosophy’, which is bunk. Saying Byzantine’s a racist means Byzantine’s subscribes to racist ‘theories’, which are bunk. Saying Byzantine’s a racist is shorthand for saying that Byzantine parrots clearly collectivistic ‘theories’, which are bunk.
The problem is, your PC sensibilities seem to be offended by my calling him a racist. I guess I should say he’s race conscious or something ?
And I never said it is. So you know what ? You’re pretending I said that I’m making an argument when I didn’t said I’m making an argument. You are misrepresenting me and refuting what I didn’t say and that’s called a…
Your tirade is irrelevant. I’ll try again.
Byzantine said
“men build hierarchies; women build families.”
Fact : a family is ‘built’ by men and women - Byzantine’s premise is clearly wrong. Second fact : ‘reasonings’ based on wrong premises are wrong.
Another one :
“women are highly status-obsessed.”
The same thing is true about men. So Byzantine’s premise is irrelevant since it applies to both men and women. Any conclusion made about women based on that premise is also true for men.
If despite all your babbling about fallacies you don’t understand these simple objections to Byzantine’s post, I’m afraid I’ve nothing else to say. Except that you don’t want to listen to arguments but prefer Byzantine’s cranky sociology.
No.
I would say that certain concepts have been exploited by many people in the State. The appeal to family isn’t merely a feminine concept as just as often the idea of family being appealed to by politicians often include a strong male presence as father/leader. As such when the agents of the State utilize the concept of family, they more often attempt to focus on traditional roles of father/son, mother/daughter, and parent/child as to why the State is necessary, that some how the State is the mother/father of all in some fashion or at least that the State ‘protects’ families from the so-called ravages of the free market.
Also, the agents of the State will equally use concepts of supposed masculinity to appeal to younger males such as the appeal to honor, loyalty, and duty. How often have you seen the adverts on TV for the US Marines? How often were the traditional masculine virtues (honor, loyalty, duty) were utilized? I can at least answer for myself: all the time. Thus, it’s not a matter of male/female-exclusive epistemologies or concepts shaping the actions of the State and its agents, rather it’s the fact the agents are attempt to shape society for their purposes (and thus that of the State’s). Ultimately, divisiveness aides the agents of the State as they will sweep in and claim that is the reason why society needs them: to give purpose, direction, and unity (Nationalism, fraternalism, and etc).
Any other formulation of the facts in itself is contradictory as it assumes one set of concepts as the only ones utilized, when the facts expose that all sets of possible concepts of collectivism are utilized by the agents of the State (period and end of story).
Your still arguing on tangents. Please re-read my post.
In the very first line I said I wasn’t on byzantines side or against you. And that at some point I might respond to his posts.
IMO Your emotions are straining your ability to reason.