Stupid World

[Graystone]

You're defence is to cite their right to say it.
A right that you curiously fail to defend when people say things you don't like.

You only support Free Speech when it's your side doing the Speaking.



Yes: The Majority of Men have a clear understanding of what Masculinity is and as the majority, they get to decide on the definition.
a Small (15% of the female population, less than 10% of the male) have a different view of Masculinity (this would be the Twisted Parody).

This IS an objective fact. As evidenced by the utter rejection by the Majority everytime this is tried.



Who is the Main Character in Infinity Wars? It's not Black Widow, It's not Gamora, It's not the Children of Thanos. I'd put the Main Characters as Thanos, followed by Thor, Tony Stark and Steve Rogers.

Not to mention that those 'strong Female characters' are "all Archetypes of traditional Masculinity" - so, doesn't *really* count. The last Female action hero that was a Female Archetype was Ripley.

I don't ask what gives them the right to say it though (on account of me understanding and recognising free speech). So the comparison is not applicable, and the hypocrisy you accuse me of certainly isn't.

And you have proof for these figures? If so, the non-bias'd term would be 'minority view', not 'twisted parody'.
Have you figures to support your claim of "utter rejection by the Majority"? Cos it certainly sound like you are completely making shit up like the antivaccers you so despise.

Clutching at straws much? Or did I miss the bit where Thanos said women were not fit to be prime minister? It is clear you are trying to bolster your representation for the views you hold by creating tenuous links to things of success; try instead, to find things that represent your views, then gauge their success, removing bias is a wonderful thing, key to learning and the scientific method, perhaps you should learn about these things somewhere...

[Katman]

No, it's outlining a series of principles. If you are too stupid to understand the answer and what it means, then that's not my issue. If you are intent on deliberately misinterpreting it in order to claim some faux-moral victory, then that's also not my issue.

The problem with your 'series of principles' is that you don't get to decide what is a valid point of concern that any particular individual may raise.

It is entirely up to the individual to decide what it is that concerns them.

So do you support their right to voice those concerns?

[Graystone]

Yes:



and





Where is the Double Standard? If you are trying to strawman me as a Free Speech Absolutist, then it would be - but I've maintained on multiple occassions that things such as incitement to violence are not covered under Free Speech. I've then outlined what the rationale behind our current incitement to... laws are and why I consider certain types of anti-vax activism to fall under that banner.

No, nowhere in there did I call for his voice to be silenced/censored, or petition the mods to do so. The ability of forums to moderate their content does not violate free speech rules as people are still free to speak in other places.

[TheDemonLord]

The problem with your 'series of principles' is that you don't get to decide what is a valid point of concern that any particular individual may raise.

It is entirely up to the individual to decide what it is that concerns them.

So do you support their right to voice those concerns?

You're partly right - I don't get to decide.

Just like I don't get to decide on any other matter where encouraging people to undertake a series of actions that could result in Harm.

For example - the parents of a baby fed on a Vegan diet were prosecuted in Australia. Is THAT entirely up to the individual to decide what concerns them?

If so and you want to hold an absolutley individualist principal - then fair enough - I'll accept your argument when you eschew all the trappings of society, until then - your choosing to remain in society means that you concede there is limit to what an individual can and can't decide, that limit is almost always predicated on whether or not innocent 3rd parties come to harm as a result of it.

And as a result of that chain of logic, there is no hypocrisy.

[TheDemonLord]

I don't ask what gives them the right to say it though (on account of me understanding and recognising free speech). So the comparison is not applicable, and the hypocrisy you accuse me of certainly isn't.

It's funny how upset you get when I hold you to the same standard you hold for others...

And you have proof for these figures?

Yes, multiple polls, across countries - Female Feminist rates vary from between 15-20%, Male Feminist rates rarely go above 10%

If so, the non-bias'd term would be 'minority view', not 'twisted parody'.

a Minority view would presume that it's an innocent misunderstanding. Given the writings of the people that promote that view, I give them no such benefit of the doubt - it's a Twisted Parody.

Furthermore, the backlash against this is further testament to this - a 'Minority view' without all the trappings could be forgiven, but this is not that, hence the severe reaction to it.

Have you figures to support your claim of "utter rejection by the Majority"? Cos it certainly sound like you are completely making shit up like the antivaccers you so despise.

Did you miss the part where everytime this ideology was injected into previously successful IP, that this change alone turned it into a commercial failure? Or are you just denying reality in deference to your God of Social Justice?

Clutching at straws much? Or did I miss the bit where Thanos said women were not fit to be prime minister? It is clear you are trying to bolster your representation for the views you hold by creating tenuous links to things of success; try instead, to find things that represent your views, then gauge their success, removing bias is a wonderful thing, key to learning and the scientific method, perhaps you should learn about these things somewhere...

I've never said Women aren't fit to be PM... In fact, I'm quite fond of Margaret Thatcher as a PM... You still keeping with this Strawman.

Here's a thought - Thor's Character arc starts with someone with great power, a lust for battle, little regard for others and a great Ego. To the end of the Movies he has transformed into an Archetype of Masculinity, he's becoming the Wise King: One who is capable, willing and able to use Violence and Force but is cognizant of the terrible burden of responsibility. He is prepared to die for the sake of others and the principals of freedom. His Anger is no longer brash, being stirred by wounded pride, but righteous Fury directed against those who would harm the innocent.

It's this story Told and Retold (Luke Skywalker, The Lion King, Harry Potter etc.) that is the way of Society reminding ourselves on what the highest value of Masculinity is and what the path to achieving it is.

Funnily enough, those have all been incredibly popular - but continue on with your attempt at claiming a post-hoc fallacy.

No, nowhere in there did I call for his voice to be silenced/censored, or petition the mods to do so. The ability of forums to moderate their content does not violate free speech rules as people are still free to speak in other places.

Rejoicing in someone getting censored is surely a funny way of defending Free Speech.

Oh wait - I forgot that you live in Opposite Land, where Commercial Failures mean something is Popular and socialism works.

[Katman]

For example - the parents of a baby fed on a Vegan diet were prosecuted in Australia. Is THAT entirely up to the individual to decide what concerns them?

Of course it's their right to decide what concerns them.

That doesn't give them immunity from the law though.

And until it becomes unlawful to voice your concerns about vaccines then individuals should absolutely have that right too.

Do you agree?

[TheDemonLord]

Of course it's their right to decide what concerns them.

That doesn't give them immunity from the law though.

And until it becomes unlawful to voice your concerns about vaccines then individuals should absolutely have that right too.

Do you agree?

What are you asking? Are you asking whether I uphold the current law or are you asking what I think a change should be? Because that last question sounds an awful lot like you're trying to conflate the too disingenuously.

The key point is, as you've kindly made clear:

That doesn't give them immunity from the law though.

Is Incitement to Harm illegal in NZ? If the answer is yes (and I'm pretty sure it is), then the question is - how do you define Harm - this is where you and I differ.

[Katman]

Is Incitement to Harm illegal in NZ? If the answer is yes (and I'm pretty sure it is), then the question is - how do you define Harm - this is where you and I differ.

And if you actually believe there is legal precedent to force people to stop voicing their concerns about vaccines then you should test it out.

But we both know you can't - because there is no legal precedent making the voicing of those concerns illegal.

[Graystone]

It's funny how upset you get when I hold you to the same standard you hold for others...



Yes, multiple polls, across countries - Female Feminist rates vary from between 15-20%, Male Feminist rates rarely go above 10%



a Minority view would presume that it's an innocent misunderstanding. Given the writings of the people that promote that view, I give them no such benefit of the doubt - it's a Twisted Parody.

Furthermore, the backlash against this is further testament to this - a 'Minority view' without all the trappings could be forgiven, but this is not that, hence the severe reaction to it.



Did you miss the part where everytime this ideology was injected into previously successful IP, that this change alone turned it into a commercial failure? Or are you just denying reality in deference to your God of Social Justice?



I've never said Women aren't fit to be PM... In fact, I'm quite fond of Margaret Thatcher as a PM... You still keeping with this Strawman.

Here's a thought - Thor's Character arc starts with someone with great power, a lust for battle, little regard for others and a great Ego. To the end of the Movies he has transformed into an Archetype of Masculinity, he's becoming the Wise King: One who is capable, willing and able to use Violence and Force but is cognizant of the terrible burden of responsibility. He is prepared to die for the sake of others and the principals of freedom. His Anger is no longer brash, being stirred by wounded pride, but righteous Fury directed against those who would harm the innocent.

It's this story Told and Retold (Luke Skywalker, The Lion King, Harry Potter etc.) that is the way of Society reminding ourselves on what the highest value of Masculinity is and what the path to achieving it is.

Funnily enough, those have all been incredibly popular - but continue on with your attempt at claiming a post-hoc fallacy.



Rejoicing in someone getting censored is surely a funny way of defending Free Speech.

Oh wait - I forgot that you live in Opposite Land, where Commercial Failures mean something is Popular and socialism works.

Upset? You asked a question and I answered it, then flew off the handle with some free speech hypocrisy because you didn't like the answer. Sargons law...

Feminist rates? That a classic false equivalence.

It is a valid view, stop injecting your bias to portray it as anything else.

That does not constitute utter rejection by the majority. Again, please stop with these false equivalences.

Ah right, the backpedaling begins, what exactly did you say about Jacinda's fitness for PM (based on her gender) then?

Censoring private forums is does not violate the right to free speech, nor does my 'rejoicing' in that fulfill what you claimed I had done. So the hypocrisy here, remains solely your own.

[TheDemonLord]

And if you actually believe there is legal precedent to force people to stop voicing their concerns about vaccines then you should test it out.

But we both know you can't - because there is no legal precedent making the voicing of those concerns illegal.

It would be an interesting case, but premature.

First you'd need to set a series of legal precedents around not vaccinating and death/serious injury of a Minor. There is precedent in the US which could be relevant. You could also make reference to the Second hand smoking legislation.

But as I pointed out to FJR, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I have a spare half a million lying around to fund such a case.

But it would be interesting.

[Katman]

But it would be interesting.

And until there is legal precedent, you'll just have to accept that it is absolutely the right of the individual to voice their concerns regarding vaccines.

So you should probably lay off the sensationalist rhetoric about 'incitement to harm' and 'Katman's responsible for the deaths of thousands of children'. It does nothing but make you look like an irrational fuckwit.

[TheDemonLord]

Upset? You asked a question and I answered it, then flew off the handle with some free speech hypocrisy because you didn't like the answer. Sargons law...

You answered it based on a principal that you only hold when it suits you. That's what I'm grilling you for. You want to use Free Speech, then I expect you to uphold it for even those you disagree with. If you want to retract your rejoicing at Censorship, I'll concede that point (then make reference to the Moral Authority to which I was originally referring)/

Feminist rates? That a classic false equivalence.

Are you high? Seriously? The rate of Feminism as in the number of people as a percentage of the population who self-declare as Feminist. There's no False Equivalence.

It is a valid view, stop injecting your bias to portray it as anything else.

The rejection suggests otherwise.

That does not constitute utter rejection by the majority. Again, please stop with these false equivalences.

On what planet does a previously successful, profitable IP that gets taken over by Social Justice ideology and becomes a massive financial loss not constitute an utter rejection by the Majority?

If it was accepted by the Majority, it would at worse break even. If in all the cases it was a small loss (for a Movie - that might be a few million), then I'd agree - not an utter rejection - but in the cases I cited - loosing nearly Half a Billion dollars - that's a complete and utter rejection.

Ah right, the backpedaling begins, what exactly did you say about Jacinda's fitness for PM (based on her gender) then?

I don't know, what did I say Graystone? You're the one telling this Story, wouldn't want reality get in the way of your narrative.

Censoring private forums is does not violate the right to free speech, nor does my 'rejoicing' in that fulfill what you claimed I had done. So the hypocrisy here, remains solely your own.

You were saying something about backpeddling? It's simple - by your own words, you were happy someone on a public forum (Twitter) got Censured. If you want to prove me a Hypocrite - it's simple:

Defend Alex Jone's right to free speech and critique Twitter for banning him.

But you won't. And that happens to be pertinent - I've called Alex Jones a loon and an Idiot on many MANY occasions (as Katman will attest if he remembers or is honest) - regardless of whether you think he's serious or a performance artist, I don't like him. You also don't like him.

The difference is that you rejoiced, I defended.

[TheDemonLord]

And until there is legal precedent, you'll just have to accept that it is absolutely the right of the individual to voice their concerns regarding vaccines.

So you should probably lay off the sensationalist rhetoric about 'incitement to harm' and 'Katman's responsible for the deaths of thousands of children'. It does nothing but make you look like an irrational fuckwit.

And the day I call the Police to censure someone voicing their concerns is the day you'll have a point.

And it's funny - you're happy to cry blood on my hands for merely agreeing with why a war was started, whereas you get defensive when I claim blood on your hands for actively promoting something.

Based on that - who's the irrational Fuckwit?

(Hint - it's the person who I'm quoting)

[Katman]

And it's funny - you're happy to cry blood on my hands for merely agreeing with why a war was started, whereas you get defensive when I claim blood on your hands for actively promoting something.

Because War is a man-made abomination.

Death from disease is Nature.

[TheDemonLord]

Because War is a man-made abomination.

Death from disease is Nature.

Death from preventable disease is a man-made abomination.

Also - Chimps go to war.

So you're wrong (as usual) on both counts.