Stupid World

[TheDemonLord]

Of course it has to do with that, the things you said before and after, don't line up with the accusation you confirmed applied to me as well. This makes the accusation wrong, and since the statements before and after contradict it; they do not clarify it, since a yes can't be clarified to a no. How can you still dispute this? You're literally arguing against one of the basic underpinnings of rationality, that concepts such as agreement and disagreement exist and are not interchangeable.

Sure, if you deliberately ignore all prior and subsequent context, in order to avoid having to argue an actual point.

It remains all of those things, you might even say I clarified it with the correct context

They are mutually exclusive, but I guess it does paint a very clear picture of how much you are willing to warp reality, to mask your hypocrisy.

I'll simply restate:

Either it's a Standard (in which case all your twaddle about exceptions is irrelevant) and so argue the point.
Or
You're a hypocrite.

Pick one.

[Graystone]

Sure, if you deliberately ignore all prior and subsequent context, in order to avoid having to argue an actual point.



They are mutually exclusive, but I guess it does paint a very clear picture of how much you are willing to warp reality, to mask your hypocrisy.

I'll simply restate:

Either it's a Standard (in which case all your twaddle about exceptions is irrelevant) and so argue the point.
Or
You're a hypocrite.

Pick one.

It is not ignored, I pointed out how it contradicts your answer to my question. Why is it so hard for you to admit you were wrong, when it is so obvious?

Care to explain how they are mutually exclusive then?

[husaberg]

Except for the Facts you've repeatedly Ignored.



Except where have I attacked them? The field they represent is well known to have a left-wing bias (There's a Fact for you) and the admission by their staff that it aligns with Social Justice means we are allowed to infer that the organizations holds certain intersectional Feminist ideals.

Which taints the rebuttal (considering the viewpoint espoused is in direct opposition to said ideals) furthermore, the multiple 'What about the Womens' in the article confirms this inference to be correct.



These are some Strawmen of Biblical proportions. No, what I'm saying is that the ideological viewpoint that has a clear majority in said organization has numerous theories (based on Intersectional Feminism - AKA Social Justice), None have been successful when policies based on those theories. Especially when it comes to Men and Masculinity.

Based on the failure of their predictive models - that qualifies me higher to talk about Masculinity.



Look who's been referencing what swings between my legs... Metamorphosis indeed...

If I was going to pull a Katman, I'd have linked to the entire 2 hour lecture, but instead I gave you the 6 minute clip that is entirely relevent to what we are discussing. Namely giving a demonstration of what the difference is between brow-beating someone and giving them the strength to proceed.

FYI - the person that asked the question, they are still alive today - so on that basis I ask you:

Who's a more credible expert when it comes to Suicide prevention?

What's double hilarious about this 'rebuttal' (which is nothing other than pure denialism) is that I deliberately didn't hit you up on an appeal to authority charge: I let you set the standard you were happy with, I then complied with the standard you set - but instead of honestly arguing the point, it's just pure dismissal.

It's your classic hypocritical double standard.



I know - hence why I explained the context.



Are you saying that Women are weak and can't handle getting their feeling hurt?

How very Sexist of you...

Oh please show these facts you have categorically linking male suicide to what you deem to be radical feminism.
I think we both know you want to pull katman
........More your opinion.
More your opinion
More your opinion
more drivel
More misdirection
Funny enough i doubt many professions would deem you to be a superior expert than the NZ mental health foundation or someone with a psychology degree when it comes to suicide risk and reasons.
Irrespective of you own musing that being a male gives you some kind of insight that supersedes university degrees the human behavior.
You pretending dawsons barb wasnt directed at all women not wanting to lower the male suicides stats is pathetic, even for someone channeling katspam

[TheDemonLord]

It is not ignored, I pointed out how it contradicts your answer to my question.

By ignoring the context...

Care to explain how they are mutually exclusive then?

Do you have Standards or do you have exceptions?
Furthermore these exceptions are applied solely at your discretion, so your waffle about 'it's not me...' is demonstrable BS.

[TheDemonLord]

Oh please show these facts you have categorically linking male suicide to what you deem to be radical feminism.

Did you miss the part about Radical Feminism wanting to abolish Marriage? Kinda relevant when you, yourself, have cited single parent families and Divorce as two large risk factors.

Funny enough i doubt many professions would deem you to be a superior expert than the NZ mental health foundation or someone with a psychology degree when it comes to suicide risk and reasons.

Fine, if that's the standard you want to set - why is it that you get to dismiss JBPs comments on the matter? He's a clinical Psychologist, one who happens to be very well cited in this field.

Irrespective of you own musing that being a male gives you some kind of insight that supersedes university degrees the human behavior.

Cool - Name me one theory promoted by Intersectional Feminism that has achieved the desired result when put into practice operationally?

I can name several off-hand that have not only not produced the desired result, but have, in fact, produced the opposite result

On that basis - who should you put your trust in? A system that produces consistently wrong results, or someone who at worst produces Neutral results?

You pretending dawsons barb wasnt directed at all women not wanting to lower the male suicides stats is pathetic, even for someone channeling katspam

It's not, it's part of a very long line of criticism that points out that Feminists will decry, at length, any perceived injustice, where they feel they aren't being granted the same opportunity as Men.
But in areas where it's the other way round, there is silence.

It's the same as the critique 'we only ever see calls for Female Lawyers and Board members, never female lumberjills or sewage workers'

[Graystone]

By ignoring the context...



Do you have Standards or do you have exceptions?
Furthermore these exceptions are applied solely at your discretion, so your waffle about 'it's not me...' is demonstrable BS.

Context? Feel free to add the applicable bits to change the how the 'yes ' is interpreted in the conversation below.

"Have I ever called for the censuring of you or any member who posts anti-vax material? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in anyway?"
to which I replied
"Have I done the same for the causes as above?"
and you replied "yes", from post 10275

Or another tack, answer the following question with a simple yes or no. Have I called for censuring of any member of posts on the topic of equality? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in any way?

But I think we both know all the above with be met with your classic evasion to avoid conceeding a point you know is wrong, no matter how small it may be.

Standards often have exceptions, these are not mutually exclusive. I outlined exactly how and why the exception would apply, so this is certainly not just applied at my whim or discretion. There are few people who fit your special case of stupidity, to which the exception applies so you are probably mixing causation and correlation up again (bit of a trait with you isn't it )

[TheDemonLord]

Context? Feel free to add the applicable bits to change the how the 'yes ' is interpreted in the conversation below.

"Have I ever called for the censuring of you or any member who posts anti-vax material? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in anyway?"
to which I replied
"Have I done the same for the causes as above?"
and you replied "yes", from post 10275

Or another tack, answer the following question with a simple yes or no. Have I called for censuring of any member of posts on the topic of equality? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in any way?

But I think we both know all the above with be met with your classic evasion to avoid conceeding a point you know is wrong, no matter how small it may be.

When you add in the prior context of what I actually accused you of and the subsequent context of showing this was what it was in relation to - then I'll answer your question, but until then, it's just a repeat demonstration of you ignoring things you don't like - as you say, 'bit of a trait with you isn't it'

Standards often have exceptions, these are not mutually exclusive. I outlined exactly how and why the exception would apply, so this is certainly not just applied at my whim or discretion. There are few people who fit your special case of stupidity, to which the exception applies so you are probably mixing causation and correlation up again (bit of a trait with you isn't it )

Sure, Standards can have Exceptions - however, it's rather funny that these 'exceptions' only materialised after I hit you up on it.
Even then, Exceptions are purely at the discretion of those who are applying the standard. Just for clarity (since you seem to struggle with context) - that would be you.
Your waffle as to trying to appeal to some abstract, higher power mandating these exceptions is both laughable and is an exercise in just passing the buck to justify the summary dismissal of arguments for which you have no counter-point to.

So, I'll simply repeat: Which one is it? Because currently you are trying to play both fields: Either it's a Standard, so I'm going to hold you to it. Or it's your own application of an exception - based on your personal biases in an attempt to mask your intellectual weakness, flawed ideology and cowardliness in this debate.

[husaberg]

Did you miss the part about Radical Feminism wanting to abolish Marriage? Kinda relevant when you, yourself, have cited single parent families and Divorce as two large risk factors.



Fine, if that's the standard you want to set - why is it that you get to dismiss JBPs comments on the matter? He's a clinical Psychologist, one who happens to be very well cited in this field.



Cool - Name me one theory promoted by Intersectional Feminism that has achieved the desired result when put into practice operationally?

I can name several off-hand that have not only not produced the desired result, but have, in fact, produced the opposite result

On that basis - who should you put your trust in? A system that produces consistently wrong results, or someone who at worst produces Neutral results?



It's not, it's part of a very long line of criticism that points out that Feminists will decry, at length, any perceived injustice, where they feel they aren't being granted the same opportunity as Men.
But in areas where it's the other way round, there is silence.

It's the same as the critique 'we only ever see calls for Female Lawyers and Board members, never female lumberjills or sewage workers'

Again i ask for these facts you have claimed to have posted that define radical feminism as being a cause of male suicide.
You go on about "JBPs comments" have you posted them?
You post a few quotes from some silly person and say look what they said shes feminist but you have failed to prove how this causes the male suicide or is even remotely linked in anyway shape or form.
i could quote hundreds of stupid quotes about females by men or females but this isnt evidence that it causes female suicides or for them to dye their hair change their facebook status or any other of a million different things.

[TheDemonLord]

Again i ask for these facts you have claimed to have posted that define radical feminism as being a cause of male suicide.

It's simple:

If the breakdown of the nuclear family increases the risk of Suicide. (your statement, backed up with citations)
and
Prominent, highly influential Feminists advocate for the breaking down of the Nuclear Family. (My statement, backed up by citations)

Therefore, Feminist advocacy is associated with increasing the risk of Suicide. (My premise)

You go on about "JBPs comments" have you posted them?

Did you not see the Video? If you want some specific quotations, I can post them - will you accept that:

A: According to the standard of evidence you yourself set out, that they meet said standard
B: Since they meet your standard, that you cannot dismiss them and must take them seriously and scholarly
C: Since you must take them seriously and scholarly, your entire premise of 'you don't know anything, this is all in your head because you hate the Wahmens' is BS.

If you can agree to the above, I'll be happy to post them up - but we both know you won't....

You post a few quotes from some silly person and say look what they said shes feminist but you have failed to prove how this causes the male suicide or is even remotely linked in anyway shape or form.

A few silly person? I think you mean 'The most influential Feminist of the 2nd wave' (Germaine Greer), not to mention Andrea Dvorkin (who was a very influential 3rd wave Feminist) and Julie Bindel (who is a regular columist for a Major national newspaper) - It's hilarious about how desperate you are to downplay the credibility of these Women (You sexist, you) - because you know the fundamental point that Feminists have advocated for policies that have directly contributed to both the lowering of the Marriage rate, the increase in divorce rate and the increase in single parent children.

Which, as you so kindly pointed out, are all risk factors in Male Suicide. There's your causal link, and it's also in your attempted character assassination that we find the truth: you wouldn't need to resort to such a tactic, if it wasn't true.

i could quote hundreds of stupid quotes about females by men or females but this isnt evidence that it causes female suicides or for them to dye their hair change their facebook status or any other of a million different things.

I'm sure you could, however:

How many of them have published books that make up the required reading of Feminist courses?
How many of them write feminist articles for national newspapers?
How many of them have Wikipedia pages that talk at length about their Feminist activism?
How many of them get invited onto talk shows to discuss Feminist and Womens issues?

Because the people I quoted do - and that happens to be relevant.

[Berries]

Or another tack, answer the following question with a simple yes or no. Have I called for censuring of any member of posts on the topic of equality? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in any way?

That's two questions with the possibility of two different answers. No wonder you fuckers have spent the last 80 pages going round in circles.

[husaberg]

It's simple:




Did you not see the Video? If you want some specific quotations, I can post them - will you accept that:

A: According to the standard of evidence you yourself set out, that they meet said standard
B: Since they meet your standard, that you cannot dismiss them and must take them seriously and scholarly
C: Since you must take them seriously and scholarly, your entire premise of 'you don't know anything, this is all in your head because you hate the Wahmens' is BS.

If you can agree to the above, I'll be happy to post them up - but we both know you won't....



A few silly person? I think you mean 'The most influential Feminist of the 2nd wave' (Germaine Greer), not to mention Andrea Dvorkin (who was a very influential 3rd wave Feminist) and Julie Bindel (who is a regular columist for a Major national newspaper) - It's hilarious about how desperate you are to downplay the credibility of these Women (You sexist, you) - because you know the fundamental point that Feminists have advocated for policies that have directly contributed to both the lowering of the Marriage rate, the increase in divorce rate and the increase in single parent children.

Which, as you so kindly pointed out, are all risk factors in Male Suicide. There's your causal link, and it's also in your attempted character assassination that we find the truth: you wouldn't need to resort to such a tactic, if it wasn't true.



I'm sure you could, however:

How many of them have published books that make up the required reading of Feminist courses?
How many of them write feminist articles for national newspapers?
How many of them have Wikipedia pages that talk at length about their Feminist activism?
How many of them get invited onto talk shows to discuss Feminist and Womens issues?

Because the people I quoted do - and that happens to be relevant.

You claimed to have produced evidence from prominent experts directly linking Suicide to causes other than what is clearly spelled out as being factors.
You have not done so yt but keep on making out you somehow have.
You claimed the reason there was a difference between male and female suicides and it was directly attributed to "RADICAL FEMINISM"
Even thouh iys clear more females actually attempt suicide, A fact you keep glossing over in the hope no one notices.
I have asked you to produce evidence that the cause of Male suicides is Racicial feminism over and over again, So where is it?
All you are posting is your opinion.

ps I really enjoy how your continued anti feminist rants ignore that more women attempt Suicide plus also there has been a larger number of males as far back as the 1920's that die from Suicide which is generally associated with there freer access and familiarity with firearms. But bugger the logic Maybe in your mind the rot really started with those women getting the vote.

So in your leaned opinion (that is i am sure even better then the LTSA judging by your disdain showed for the NZ mental health foundation)
Is radical feminism also responsible for the Crash stats and deaths that show men are far more likely to die /mile than women traveled as well.


Or could there possibly be other reasons

[Graystone]

When you add in the prior context of what I actually accused you of and the subsequent context of showing this was what it was in relation to - then I'll answer your question, but until then, it's just a repeat demonstration of you ignoring things you don't like - as you say, 'bit of a trait with you isn't it'



Sure, Standards can have Exceptions - however, it's rather funny that these 'exceptions' only materialised after I hit you up on it.
Even then, Exceptions are purely at the discretion of those who are applying the standard. Just for clarity (since you seem to struggle with context) - that would be you.
Your waffle as to trying to appeal to some abstract, higher power mandating these exceptions is both laughable and is an exercise in just passing the buck to justify the summary dismissal of arguments for which you have no counter-point to.

So, I'll simply repeat: Which one is it? Because currently you are trying to play both fields: Either it's a Standard, so I'm going to hold you to it. Or it's your own application of an exception - based on your personal biases in an attempt to mask your intellectual weakness, flawed ideology and cowardliness in this debate.

You can add that in to show how it changes the context if you like. Well, if you weren't lying about it that is...

Did they only materialise then? or did I only point them out to you then... Again, correlation and causation are not the same thing. Also, an exception which is explained and justified, is not purely at the discretion of those who are applying the standard as it can be argued whether or not it should be applied based on that justification.

[Graystone]

That's two questions with the possibility of two different answers. No wonder you fuckers have spent the last 80 pages going round in circles.

Not round in circles, just bashing ones head against a wall and making no progress whatsoever. Two simple questions, and he won't answer either of them...

[TheDemonLord]

You claimed to have produced evidence from prominent experts directly linking Suicide to causes other than what is clearly spelled out as being factors.
You have not done so yt but keep on making out you somehow have.

Broken families are a risk factor in Suicide.
Prominent Feminists have called for the Break up of Family unit.

But in your mind- these two things are completely unrelated...

I'll ask again - do you accept that if I post up exact quotations (as you demanded) from a well respected Psychologist, you'll retract all of your BS statements? Curiously, you are quite silent on this.

You claimed the reason there was a difference between male and female suicides and it was directly attributed to "RADICAL FEMINISM"

Nice Strawman, try again - this time, reference what I've actually said.

Since this is the umpteenth time you've got it wrong, the only thing I've claimed is that the rise in Male suicides (so no comparison in that statement to Women) is related to the pushing of certain Feminist ideas and policies.

Even thouh iys clear more females actually attempt suicide, A fact you keep glossing over in the hope no one notices.

I've acknowledged it's true, what you ignore is more males ACTUALLY DIE from Suicide.

I consider death to be the more permanent and serious of the 2 issues.

I have asked you to produce evidence that the cause of Male suicides is Racicial feminism over and over again, So where is it?
All you are posting is your opinion.

And I've provided it, referencing it back to your Facts. You repeatedly ignore this.

ps I really enjoy how your continued anti feminist rants ignore that more women attempt Suicide plus also there has been a larger number of males as far back as the 1920's that die from Suicide which is generally associated with there freer access and familiarity with firearms. But bugger the logic Maybe in your mind the rot really started with those women getting the vote.

More twaddle - how do you explain the disparity in the likes of Britain where Firearm ownership is much more difficult? Not to mention that only a small percentage of suicides use Firearms (except the US).

What I think you mean to say is that when Men decide to kill themselves, they use means which are very violent and instantly lethal. It's almost like there's some biology at work here, where the more Violent of the Genders uses more Violent means....

It's even funnier when you brought up the Recidivism rate - ignoring the main reason why women have a higher recidivism rate than men: Men actually kill themselves, so there's no possibility to try again.

So in your leaned opinion (that is i am sure even better then the LTSA judging by your disdain showed for the NZ mental health foundation)
Is radical feminism also responsible for the Crash stats and deaths that show men are far more likely to die /mile than women traveled as well

Or could there possibly be other reasons

Cool - let's entertain that Analogy shall we - if you can just point to prominent Feminists seeking policies that are directly in line with the risk factors you yourself identify, then I'll allow it.

Double funny because I pointed out that Intersectional policies (which is what I'm critiquing) have a shitty track record for their predictive merits, yet - curiously, you've gone all shy on this point. Afterall, if it was just that I hated the Mental Health Foundation (I don't), then it would be an easy win for you - but we both know that the ideology (which is what I actually hold disdain for) has had multiple real-world implementations where the opposite effect from their predictive model occurred, and it's on that basis that I claim superiority.

Just like anyone would claim superiority over a 'scientist' who contended that Gravity caused things to float upward from the ground.

If not, it's a Red Herring.

[TheDemonLord]

You can add that in to show how it changes the context if you like. Well, if you weren't lying about it that is...

That sounds a lot like Backpedaling... As for 'if I weren't lying...' I've not edited those posts, you can clearly see the accusation I made against you - so I'm not sure how this would even be a question.

Although given your previous efforts to strip any and all context, I shouldn't be surprised.

Did they only materialise then?

Can you point previously in this discussion where you've outlined them? If not, the timing is suspect at the very least.

This could be forgiven, however the subsequent wrangling we see below removes any inclination I have to grant benefit of the doubt.

Also, an exception which is explained and justified, is not purely at the discretion of those who are applying the standard as it can be argued whether or not it should be applied based on that justification.

This is you, it's what you say, you are the one applying the standard and the exception and are doing so entirely at your whim - stop trying to make it out to be anything other than this. All you are doing is attempting to hide your inadequacies, but I'm not buying it.