![]() |
Re: Gender and violence issues
Quote:
Couple of examples: - oral sex - shaving of the pubes - whether or not we think it's acceptable to have sex before marriage All of these things, you'll find significant differences in preference between two groups of people. Generally speaking, groups of people that are more liberal about issues of sex, watch pornography, etc, tend to enjoy oral sex more, prefer shaved genitalia, and think it's okay to have sex before marriage. |
Re: Gender and violence issues
That'd be correlation if true stargroup, not causational.
|
Re: Gender and violence issues
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Gender and violence issues
I get slapped, yelled at and kicked by one of my ex's, nobody bats an eye.
I slap her after she does all three, everyone loses their mind. Just because someone is a woman doesn't mean you can get away with hitting me. If you hit me, I WILL hit back. I won't beat someone, but if they want to slap me, I'll slap back. |
Re: Gender and violence issues
Let's solve violence with more violence! :-|
|
Re: Gender and violence issues
There are lots of ways of resolving issues without returning violence. I'm not necessarily saying that you were necessarily in the wrong in hitting that girl back, but that's certainly not an appropriate attitude.
Quote:
How do you explain the fact that certain groups of people in particular environments tend to have particular preferences? Can it actually be a coincidence? If it's not a result of society's influence, then what? |
Re: Gender and violence issues
Sorry for not answering before. I was busy with a lot of other stuff.
Quote:
http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/ http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...atement06.html Go ahead and say that again. Let's see how much of reality you are willing to ignore. Quote:
Absolutely nothing you posted justifies the fact that this medically unnecessary(in the vast majority of cases) act is performed on newborn babies with no consent whatsoever. If someone wants whatever health benefits they believe they can gain from being circumcised, they should do it when they choose to, not as an imposition from their parents. The main issue here is precisely the fact that a large part of society doesn't consider this to be a violation of human rights. I don't see why this is so difficult to grasp. In an earlier post, I also posted these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acc70D2ApFg And part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPxjhLq3eUQ You don't have to watch them, but they provide some nice extra information. |
Re: Gender and violence issues
I got it from the peer reivewed Mayo Clinic Proceedings? You know, the Mayo Clinic that is pretty much the premier medical facility on Earth? Yeah, those guys thought the study was well done enough to publish. Yours come from a place actually called circumstitions. Now, I love a good pun as much as the next guy, but we're talking orders of magnitude here.
|
Re: Gender and violence issues
Quote:
|
Re: Gender and violence issues
Yeah multipost but hours away.
Mastectomies reduce the rate of breast cancer hugely, obviously it's in my best interest to go get one. |
Re: Gender and violence issues
Because circumcision is the same as, what would you even call it, a Prostatectomy?
|
Re: Gender and violence issues
Quote:
|
Re: Gender and violence issues
no this website was created in 2002.
|
Re: Gender and violence issues
Quote:
The only reason we've even bothered studying that circumcision as a notable thing to make sure that it's not harmful (still debatable...just because, as a whole, risks may not outweight benefits...even if that were a thing one can properly measure, you're still taking a risk) is because it's ridiculously common. It's still removal of a body part without consent for not really any GOOD reason. |
Re: Gender and violence issues
I like the people who link a few articles from highly biased, non-peer-reviewed sources as if they have any meaning.
Said sites will show like a few dozen operations gone wrong and they're all like "BUT LOOK IT CAN BE BAAAAD" You realize a death rate of two per million is literally lower than the death rate from stepping into a bathtub? |
Re: Gender and violence issues
|
Re: Gender and violence issues
not only is "misogyny" not precisely defined in that article but "misogyny kills" is a nebulous, imperfect and ideological (yes) gloss over what are undoubtedly numerous factors that contributed to the cause-->effect of that shooter's actions, including his neurological makeup, his existing genetic predispositions, his home environment and his interpersonal relationships, among others. to conclude causality on the basis of "misogyny" is intellectually irresponsible if not absurd, as if one can immediately ascertain the correlation of a set of social factors. on a more subjective note, that guardian article is a reactionary kneejerk that's better off as a reddit comment.
|
Re: Gender and violence issues
The headline is clickbait, but the article does address "his neurological makeup, his existing genetic predispositions, his home environment and his interpersonal relationships" and misogyny was an underlying factor for all of those things. That's just the nature of click-based success in journalism, you have to have a one-liner for idiots like us to argue about regardless of the rest of the article's content.
|
Re: Gender and violence issues
you say "regardless of the rest of the article's content" like the article's content was worth arguing about. it's some of the sloppiest causal reasoning I've seen in print in a while outside of mainstream political punditry, although I suppose this could count as 'mainstream'. it's shameful that the guardian is now the UK version of the huffington post, when it used to host greenwald as a regular contributor.
this line is especially ill-conceived given the rest of it: "glosses over the role that misogyny and gun culture play (and just how foreseeable violence like this is) in a sexist society" note that the author cites no evidence of contribution that these cultural factors play to this incident, rather you're just expected to draw a connection because one event happened to be close to the other in time. in other words, what follows an event is not caused by an event. using this same reasoning I could say 'presidential culture', whatever the hell that means (it's not defined, just like 'misogyny' isn't defined by the author) caused Obama to intervene in Libya; I wouldn't, because that's irresponsible and I have no way to prove that claim but what does the author actually cite? links to men's rights forums. this lets me know that the author was likely on these forums reacting to the incident and felt linking to men's rights-related material a higher priority than demonstrating causal claims about gun culture or misogyny. given that I've engaged with people like this before, I fully expect the author to give some perception-based explanation like "look around you it's obvious" that breaks down when you don't see the same thing or think it's equally obvious. then, the author cites the fact that men's rights groups have been flagged by the SPLC, which immediately lets me know this author's ideological position since the people who repeat this particular talking point tend to have a certain stake in shifting around the definition of words to suit their ends. I have a feeling that if I recommended The Blank Slate to this author she would dismiss it on the grounds that Pinker is a misogynist -- this has happened. the author even uses this wording "an organization that tracks hate groups, has been watching their movements for years"; the significance of "has been watching their movements for years" is only significant if it implies an active vigil, which it isn't; more than likely it's been in their database and they don't give a shit. (or if they do, then the state of hate groups in the US has reached a pretty mild level.) some of the author's claims are trivially true, like "there is no such thing as a lone misogynist", but it's a paraphrase of the claim that culture exerted causal force on this event. not only does the author not define her terms in any meaningful way, the cause-->effect reasoning is atrocious. I was being generous in my first comment, but it's frankly ridiculous that anyone would think this article is worthwhile, much less meritorious. Quote:
if I'm for some reason grossly wrong in misreading you then please quote where the article attributes the aforementioned two things to 'misogyny' as opposed to blithely attributing all actions to vague social forces |
Re: Gender and violence issues
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution