people are good

[iqqi]

My main point in that regard, which has little to do with the original topic, is that most of you are getting what you seek.

And that has to do with your mindframe.

Which IS more on topic.

 

[Luthor Rex]

Who stole feminism?

Oh yeah, iggi we're makin' this sh!t up...

American women outlive their male counterparts by nearly 10 years, control more than half the national wealth, and make up the majority of undergraduate students, law students, and voters. Skeptics are starting to question whether this is a group genuinely entitled to victim status. Never has such a privileged circle been represented by such an array of pedants claiming that a war is being waged against them, or has so cowed the media and the government into abandoning all standards of objectivity. It is an irony almost too delicious to contemplate: How did one of the most privileged sets of people in the history of the world, in terms of wealth, education, and political power, come to be represented by its self-appointed spokespersons and their media minions as a passel of cringing victims in need of special protection by an all-wise government?

Sommers analyzes the philosophical underpinnings of the victimology-feminist movement, first visiting the universities, where lockstep conformity is enforced in the name of "diversity" and "inclusiveness." She discusses the ideological litmus tests that determine career advancement, chronicles the "redefinition of knowledge" that aims to eliminate such male biases as the illusion of excellence, and describes the way in which education has been placed in the service of politics and politically biased group therapy. She shows how, with the backing of government agencies, history texts are being rewritten to accommodate feminist sensitivities, and science and mathematics redefined, with "logic and rationality [derided as] `phallocentric.'" This is not a small revolution. The curriculum transformation movement, she points out, "has quietly become a potent force affecting the American classroom at every level, from the primary grades to graduate school."

This is the kind of book that entertains while it horrifies. Sommers is at her most devastating when she attacks the pseudo-statistics victimology feminists employ to buttress their claims. She exposes a number of influential hoaxes, meticulously tracking the way they have been mindlessly repeated by the media until they have come to seem part of received wisdom. These include the Super Bowl canard holding that wife beating increases 40 percent during the game (utterly baseless, but TV stations ran ads urging men to remain calm); the fantastic statistic that 150,000 American women die each year from anorexia (more than three times the annual number of automobile fatalities for the entire population?); and a supposed March of Dimes study proving that wife abuse is responsible for more birth defects than all other causes combined (there was no such study). She also discusses the inflated statistics and flawed or imaginary data employed by rape-crisis advocates, self-esteem promoters, and gender-equity bureaucrats to advance their self- perpetuating agenda. No reader of this book will ever again consume a scare statistic on any subject without a large dose of salt.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29521.html

 

[iqqi]

I don't really pay attention to feminist arguments or statistics, or the opposition. I am sure you could find a book to counter that one you picked. It's pointless. It's all unimportant to me.

Unless you are going after a feminist, I don't know why you'd bother with it either.

 

[Luthor Rex]

My main point in that regard, which has little to do with the original topic, is that most of you are getting what you seek.

And that has to do with your mindframe.

Which IS more on topic.

:kick:

 

[Luthor Rex]

I don't really pay attention to feminist arguments or statistics, or the opposition. I am sure you could find a book to counter that one you picked. It's pointless. It's all unimportant to me.

Unless you are going after a feminist, I don't know why you'd bother with it either.

The most amazing thing about everything iqgi has posted in this thread is how predictable it is.

Women are so much alike that I think I'll soon be able to just write iqqi's posts for her from now on.

I think this was the best, and most horrifying line:

I am sure you could find a book to counter that one you picked. It's pointless.

It's like the collective-female-consciousness that iqqi shares somehow believes that if two positions are put forth on a subject, and those two positions disagree; then therefore both must be incorrect.

Well I guess over the history of the world we did breed the women to be docile for a reason...

But I'll bet no man heard this kind of stupid sh!t from this Greek woman!

 

[aliasguy]

Iqqi started a whole thread about "why you should buy a woman a drink."

Now she's typing THIS stuff.
Go figure.

 

[iqqi]

Iqqi started a whole thread about "why you should buy a woman a drink."

Now she's typing THIS stuff.
Go figure.

I don't understand what "THIS stuff" has to do with that thread? Or was this just your easy IN on the iq bashing this time 'round?

I've said most of what I wanted to on this thread in regards to mindframes, and my stance on "goodness". Most of the replies to my posts have not had anything to do with what I actually said, so I shall bow out in an effort to keep the thread alive.

Some people are good.

 

[aliasguy]

Well, Iqqi, thanks for bowing out.

You are argumentative and hostile and essentially not helpful in this thread.

Thanks again.

(but I bet you DON'T stay out.)

 

[Mr.Positive]

(but I bet you DON'T stay out.)

OK, let's sum up this thread..

1) Some people are good, although our interpretation of good varies and the so does the reasons they are good.

2) Women love to argue, will continue to argue regardless of making any point whatsoever, and always must get the last word in.

(Thanks Iqqi for the last one..)

 

[romangod]

Well, Iqqi, thanks for bowing out.

You are argumentative and hostile and essentially not helpful in this thread.

Thanks again.

(but I bet you DON'T stay out.)

I hope she doesn't stay out. She seems more with it than most women. I don't find her hostile or argumentative. She's a good "devil's advocate" that has provoked thought and discussion.



.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

...if you believe they are good, then you are going to be outgoing and you're going to be friendly and you're going to take an interest in people. you are going to ask out women and not fear rejection, because you aren't going to worry that some chic is going make you look like a fool.

Welcome to my world... Feels quite a bit less stressful doesn't it?

 

[Luthor Rex]

OK, let's sum up this thread..

2) Women love to argue, will continue to argue regardless of making any point whatsoever, and always must get the last word in.

(Thanks Iqqi for the last one..)

Oooo, good catch!

:cheer:

 

[STR8UP]

Well keep being enlightened, great guy. I'm sure that is why you are so "successful" with the strippers and the aging AW's and the foreign chick from years ago that "coulda been the one". And that is also probably why you don't think other kinds of women exist. You know, the kind that aren't after your "image of wealth", for instance.

Typical.

Instead of responding to my points you try to start a pissing match.

Once again, plenty of disagreement with no information to support it.

 

[mrRuckus]

but the pivotal issue in life is whether you believe that people are, in general, good or bad.

if you believe they are good, then you are going to be outgoing and you're going to be friendly and you're going to take an interest in people. you are going to ask out women and not fear rejection, because you aren't going to worry that some chic is going make you look like a fool.

So it takes ignorance to be confident? That IS what i've noticed. Lots of people with few skills, poor appearance, and about nothing going for them but walk around all confident. Why are they confident? Because they're dumb enough to assess themselves as capable? Come on, we've all known the extremely ****y son-of-a-b1tch who everyone laughs at behind his back because it's such misplaced ****iness. But there are lots of less extreme versions of him running around.

There was a recent study that showed the same lack of faculties that make you not so bright makes you completely misjudge your abilities. This is why everyone thinks they're a "better than average" driver even though it's impossible. People are confident out of their own ignorance!

Maybe there really isn't a thing as confidence, but rather just a lack of fear out of either ignorance of the fears or you've become numb to them since you felt the pain the realization of the fear so often. I suppose that's why people do approach journals so that they just get used to rejection that it doesn't hurt anymore so they're not afraid to approach anymore? They do say that bravery isn't an absence of fear (if confident why are you fearful?), but going on despite it.

I'm sure you've driven down a 50 mph one lane highway where someone wants to drive 30. So you have this big chain of cars and likely i'm driving behind you drooping my head acting like i've been bored to death. It only takes one person to FVCK everyone else so big deal if people are generally good if it takes one jerk (or good intentioned ignoramus) to ruin the night.

The great irony is that i'm probably an ignorant fool too and dont realize it. It's the same thing as judging your own sanity. You can't.

bleh i'm all over the place.

im endlessly amazed at how nice strangers are when you spark a conversation with them in the elevator or while standing in line etc.

You mean like the fake smiles and stuff people give while hoping you'll leave them alone or won't hurt them? They're so nice because they'll talk to you but how many would really go out of their way? People are as nice as its an advantage to them.

Sure, strangers will chit chat with you because they have about nothing to lose, but the second anything detrimental comes about, you are cannon fodder.

 

[mrRuckus]

I really don't think it's anything wrong with the nice guy just except his partner doesn't share the same internal willing ness to "give" without expectation, but the process of continuing to give without receiving is draining.

Altruism isn't real.

People giving "without expectation" is really people giving for the reward of the good feelings they get in return.

Some people don't get good feelings for giving "for nothing" so they don't do it.

People give and expect something in return. They might give this time and this time and the next time after that but they're thinking of it more in terms of saving up the karma or whatever and expect the other person (friend, relative, partner, whatever) to at least attempt to reciprocate a bit. Who wants to give to someone repeatedly to never ever get ANYTHING back?

If i go down on a girl once or twice and i don't ever get head then i just label them as selfish and stop giving to them. There's no reason to always have a race to be equal but in realistic terms it's gotta be in the ballpark. How many free backrubs can i give if she never offers me one ever? I'll give one just to be nice but it's grating to never even be offered one in return. Would you have sex with someone who got themselves off and quit?

Would you keep driving your friend everywhere in all your activities if they never once offered gas money or would drive you in exchange? Come on, we just start to think they're jerks, but some of you are saying if you're truly nice you'd let them take advantage of you.

And giving money to some homeless dude out of "kindness" is just addiction to the chemicals released by doing so. Kindness junkies.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

No, MrRuckus. Altruism is real. From personal experience, I know it to be true. I am not American. When I landed in this country, I knew nothing about how things worked here. I was thinking I could stay in a hotel outside the airport till I arranged proper housing and such, only I didn't know it would take all my money to stay at a hotel for 4 days. I didn't even have to worry about that. The woman whom I had met on the plane invited me to stay with her as she was visiting with her son and grandkids. It was magical. That is what makes humanity great.

Also, about giving without wanting anything back, I do it, and I know there are billions of people who do it everyday too. Materialism and possessiveness sort of clouds our interactions, but when it is possible to know it takes only little to be happy, it is easy to give without a thought.

Mr.R was speaking to altruism as being completely selfless. I'm sure that the woman who took you in got something personal out of her good deed to you even if it was only to make her feel good for helping out a stranger.

 

[KontrollerX]

Yeah I think a lot of the "people are good" believers are missing the point that no good deed is done without selfish reasons being its motivation.

Joekerr's post to me a few pages back he was propping up this guy to be good who ended up dying trying to save another person's life by jumping in some lake I guess.

Luthor Rex I believe put it all into perspective.

That guy who died to save another's life was simply trying to preserve his own image of himself as a good moral guy and it meant so much to him that he was willing to die for it, in other words he was selfish about preserving his view of himself.

He didn't place the feelings and needs of his own family and friends he might leave behind and hurt by his possible death before his own feelings.

Oh no.

His self image meant a lot more to him at the time than the hurt they would feel if he were suddenly snuffed out and he made a selfish choice to preserve it.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I sort of figured that... It is distressing to see that attitude. I don't know why there should be any feeling of goodness in doing what can be done (without injury to self).

HUH??? Are you saying that a person shouldn't feel good about what he or she does even if it's for someone else?

 

[Mr.Positive]

That guy who died to save another's life was simply trying to preserve his own image of himself as a good moral guy and it meant so much to him that he was willing to die for it, in other words he was selfish about preserving his view of himself.

He didn't place the feelings and needs of his own family and friends he might leave behind and hurt by his possible death before his own feelings.

Oh no.

His self image meant a lot more to him at the time than the hurt they would feel if he were suddenly snuffed out and he made a selfish choice to preserve it.

You have to understand Kontroller, that sometimes things happen so fast that we do not have time to 'ponder' the outcome.

We are not given the opportunity to choose, or question, why we do things.

As I posted earlier, it is a time for action and action only. How you handle yourself in an emergency situation speaks soo much truth about what type of person you truly are.

I guarantee the guy that died saving the kids was not thinking about the outcome of the situation. He didn't have time to think about his own life, or of death...he did think at all...he just took action.

He did what needed to be done, at that very moment, he was without choices really. He acted on instinct, and instinct alone. Unfortunately, he died because of it.

He was not selfish at all, what he did was a completely selfless thing.

 

[KontrollerX]

Mr. Positive it was simply his instinct acting in response to his deeply internalized beliefs about himself.

In short it was instinct acting on behalf of the man's selfishness to preserve his self image as a good moral man.

Luthor Rex explains all of this much better than I can near the bottom of page 2 of this thread if you're interested.