XYisInferior
Posts: 166
Joined: 2/17/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
A particularly clear, and repugnant example, of one of the many problems appeared during the 1930s when Nazi 'scientists' tried their hardest to 'show' that the Aryan race was superior to every other. The problem was quite obvious: the irrational belief in Aryan superiority came first; the 'science' came second. I and others have said before, over and over, that your own methods follow the same path. You want to believe in this superiority first and set out to evidence that desire second.
The problem with all scientific and political propaganda of the national social party of Germany was that it could easily be disproven as grossly distorted fact. Comparing the evils of a genocidal patriarchal regime to a chosen lifestyle (selectable on this very site, I might add) centered around gynocentrism is a bit of a stretch, but predictable, rhetorically speaking. There is not one matriarchal society in history that has committed atrocious acts of genocide and cruelty on such a mass scale as patriarchal societies. Nearly every frame of reference we have is from a patriarchal standpoint (see your reference to "piles of mistakes" in history later).
Further, I would point out that you have rather limited information on how I personally formed my own beliefs about Female supremacy in the first place. Scientific, social and experiential evidence was considered and built upon first, not second, in forming my beliefs.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Even that is not necessarily a ‘bad thing’ – just so long as you know that you have to watch how your desires are affecting your search for evidence. The danger is confirmation bias and I don’t think you’re clear on this at all, frankly.
But what about your confirmation bias, in turn? I enjoy these opportunities to talk about Female supremacy, but it's obvious this subject is probably more important to you than it is to me as this juncture. In any case, let's consider the points made thus far:
• Female supremacy is a belief and the lifestyle is a choice (again, as evidenced upon this very site). Neither I nor any I associate with wish to force our views upon anyone. That has been made abundantly clear several times.
• I have made it clear that scientific fact alone is not solely the basis upon which I came into my beliefs, and that point has been made several times as well, but you continue to frame this debate exclusively in a propagandized "pseudoscience" framework, ignoring both the validity of those facts and the sociological, empirical and theoretical discussion almost entirely.
• I have pointed out that reasoning and valuation cannot happen without facts, and objective facts are often organized into systems of thought, logic, and valuation.
• Despite your claim there is no intellectual, sociological or political forces in the world that are pro-Female, I have articulated otherwise, by way of calling to light the apologetic and critical writings of citable authors speaking for or to extreme feminism and pro-Female bias.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
You don’t want the genetic complexity argument to start considering the facts, for instance, that chickens are much more genetically complex than humans, and that the most genetically complex organism found so far is a species of fern.
I tend to doubt that fern possesses any neuronal ability that is comparable to even the dimmest human being. Some animals possess greater genomic base pairs than humans do for adaptation to their environment, indeed, but as I've pointed out in the thread you've referred to, we are discussing sex differences between Female and male humans, default pathways in reproduction, differences in brain structure, etc. Feel free to compare a stallion to a bitch in a battle of the sexes argument, but one inevitably will conclude it's probably better to compare males and Females from the same genomic system.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
You may well see women on the whole as more nurturing, caring, empathetic, etc, etc – but you wouldn’t be stupid enough to believe that a Margaret Thatcher or a Sarah Palin, for instance, necessarily had more of those qualities than a Barack Obama just because the first two were women.
My vote was for Hillary Clinton, actually.
You'd probably be interested to know that the Female supremacy I know recognizes excellent qualities in men as well, but ultimately, yes, I do see Women, in aggregate, as more nurturing, empathetic, reasonable, and so on. I recognize that not every Woman is the same; they have varying degrees of intelligence and talent, as men do, but I value and favor Women more. Warren Farrell seems to think a good portion of society tends to do so as well, often without even thinking about it. Speaking to the candidate subject, I was thrilled we had two Females. I personally felt Palin was a needed (but unvetted) political stunt that backfired, and little more.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Have you any idea of how repulsive that [Female supremacy] looks?
With all due respect, I don't care how repugnant my views look to you. I'm not trying to persuade you to join the team; I'm simply answering your questions. My values are obviously not your values. I think we've established that clearly by now over several threads.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Why is it that it's considered wrong to accept that 'two wrongs make a right' in all arguments other than those that are political? We should aim not to force religious, intellectual and political ideas upon future generations. We should not just give in and add to the pile of mistakes already made.
Piles of mistakes? You could view history only from that perspective, or accept that every village, empire and republic is organized by and built upon the foundation of an idea, belief system or principle of thinking—even the idea of meritocracy, which, put under critical analysis, can never coincide perfectly with the realities of human nature. Put under even more critical thinking, one realizes that a meritocracy is purely a fictional idea among humans. That said, there will always be belief systems, special interests and various permutations of "groupthink" logic that hinder or advance the progress of human experience in one form or another. As I've expressed already, let the idea of Female supremacy enter the marketplace of ideas and see where it goes. If it's so wrong-headed, it shouldn't threaten you so much as to spend so much time attacking it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
I doubt that you really believe that religious belief is as free as all that in the USA.
Hate to burst your bubble, but it is. You are free to practice your particular religion in the United States, despite leanings toward Judeo-Christian influence. The framework of our constitution allows it. Escaping religious persecution is one of the very reasons why American colonists moved from Britain in the first place, but it was not until Madison's and Jefferson's days that such ideals began forming any effective intellectual or political honesty.
_____________________________
S a h a r a h E v e . c o m
Do your own homework. Write your own stuff.
|
RE: Worship a Female sub. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread