Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Monday 30 April 2007 12:56, Haci-Murat Hubey wrote:
>> 1. If males and females are equal, then female lives can't be so
>> bad; otherwise why live so long?
> Imagine how long they'd live if their lives were better.
> I should also point out that while we privileged few in the
> industrialised Western world live long lives, in the undeveloped
> Third World the pattern is reversed -- while both men and women
> live relatively short lives (at least on average) women die younger
> than men, often in childbirth. That is likely to have been the
> general pattern for 99% of human history. Drawing grand social
> conclusions from a rather special period of history is not wise.
The ones who are complaining seem to be from the priviliged few; their
examples are countries
where females are in a mess; and as a result, they demand more rights in
the countries in which
the priviliged want more priviliges.
Where is the rationality?
Did you check nationmaster.com for statistics on every topic you can
>> 2. If females live longer despite being treated so badly, then
>> they must be superior. If they are
>> superior, then using the concept of "progressive taxation" which
>> liberals/leftists love so much
>> then the laws should favor males. Nietsche would have been proud;
>> "The strong shall suffer
>> because they are strong enough to bear it."
> Progressive taxation only applies in the _economic_ sphere, not
> biology, health, education, intelligence, or good taste in fashion.
Why does it apply only in the economic sphere?
Are you implying that it is fair that it should only apply in the
economic sphere?What does it
mean for something to be only in the economic sphere?
If males are dying young because they are short, fat, poor and can't get
young women, what good does it do to give them money when they can't get
beautiful women what is the purpose of having money? They will die young.
Is that fair?
> I find it telling that Hubey places progressive taxation in scare
> quotes, a good sign of somebody an economic crank. The alternative
> to progressive taxation is the well-named _regressive_ taxation,
> which taxes the poor more heavily than the wealthy. It's bad for
> the poor, bad for social cohesiveness, bad for government revenue,
> and ultimately bad for the economy.
Maybe one day you will read my works in economics, and compare them to
cranks, e.g. Marx, Lenin, marxists, and various flavors of leftists.
>> 3. Since females are a majority, and since females have almost
>> total control of children,
> Says who?
Boo hoo. Who has been crying that they are washing diapers all the time?
>> and since according to received dogma, most of a person's
>> character is already formed
>> in early childhood,
> Whose received dogma?
Where have you been the last 30-40 years?
If you mean reading-wise, where has the planet been since Freud?
>> then females deliberately mould males to grow
>> up to take risks and
>> thus die from all kinds of behaviors. Therefore it is females
>> that are responsible for
>> males dying at early ages.
> There's a couple of great gaping holes in your logical argument. Let
> me fill them in for you:
> (1) Whoever raises children completely forms their character.
This is hardly my argument. See Freud, Freudians and the rest of the
> (2) Women, not men, completely raise children;
Never said that.
> (3) Children's character is completely formed by early childhood.
Close enough for a cigar. See Freudians and their cousins and
> (4) The formation of children's characters is deliberately chosen.
Duuh. What is socialization, education etc about?
> (5) Therefore women deliberately form children's character.
Oh. Do you mean women (and men) just let the children run ragged like
> (6) Therefore women are responsible for men getting drunk and
> speeding and killing themselves in car crashes.
That is about right as a parody of the intellectual level of most of the
arguments that pass for
"science" (thank God, not physical science) for the past 300 years since
> I think once the missing gaps are filled in, it is obvious just how
> ridiculous Hubey's argument is. Out of the four premises, not one
> is true.
That is exactly how parody is supposed to work. Thank you.