Although feminists do make a lot of absurd arguments, their opponents do occasionally make some too. I have recently seen an argument that look like the following:
It was cross-culturally observed that women were regarded as the inferior gender in ancient times, therefore, it is adaptive to do so. Thus, women are, indeed, the less capable gender.
I doubt this would be a valid argument (but I think it carries some truth). This is because it has a hidden premise, which look like this:
Things that are adaptive in ancient time must also be adaptive nowaday.
Without this premise, this argument won't work. The point is, we know that environment changes. For instance, humans developed a preference for sweet taste in ancient times. However, seeing all the obesity and health problems caused by sugar consumption, I doubt if this instinct is adaptive in nowaday society. Therefore, the hidden premise is NOT true, and the argument is not valid.
Conclusion
As mentioned, I believe that there are something inherently wrong with the female gender, but I don't think the "adaptive" argument is a sound argument. The conclusion may be correct, but it is not valid.
2011年3月29日 星期二
2011年3月28日 星期一
More pro-gay arguments
I have discussed some absurd arguments promoted by gay activists previously, and I am going to evaluate more of their arguments. After some readings, I have to say that gay activists (along with feminists) seriously need to take some classes on logics and debates.
Arguement 1
There is nothing wrong with a loving and consensual relationship.
-I can think of some problems with this argument: It allows incest. If it stands, than it follows that incest would be morally acceptable, and we know that incest is harmful to the health of the offsprings due to higher likelihood of transmitting genetic disease. In this case, incest is a very selfish behaviors since the participants fulfil their wish at the expense of other people. Therefore, it follows that this argument is not a good reason to justify behaviors.
Argument 2:
Not accepting homosexual relationships is not fair since heterosexual relationships are widely accepted.
-Yes, fairness is important to our society. But the prerequisite of fairness is that the target behavior should be morally acceptable. For example, if we accept women doing certain crimes while condemning men for doing the same, we would call this unfair because both behaviors are exactly the same.
-The point is, is heterosexual and homosexual relationships truly "the same". I think not, for the most parts. Even in societies in which gay rights are most rampant, homosexual couples are still more likely to break up than heterosexual ones, and homosexuals are still more likely to abuse substances and alcohol than heterosexuals. Therefore, I think I have some good reasons to suggest that these two are NOT the same.
-By the way, don't tell me that these are due to homophobia. Do some goggling and you will find a good number of studies which suggest that homophobia does contribute, but it cannot explain everything.
Conclusion
I don't think homosexuals are giving good reasons for us to accept them (and more importantly, spending so much money to help them). I am not anti-gay, but despite this, the fact is gay activists probably have a hard time justifying their behaviors.
Arguement 1
There is nothing wrong with a loving and consensual relationship.
-I can think of some problems with this argument: It allows incest. If it stands, than it follows that incest would be morally acceptable, and we know that incest is harmful to the health of the offsprings due to higher likelihood of transmitting genetic disease. In this case, incest is a very selfish behaviors since the participants fulfil their wish at the expense of other people. Therefore, it follows that this argument is not a good reason to justify behaviors.
Argument 2:
Not accepting homosexual relationships is not fair since heterosexual relationships are widely accepted.
-Yes, fairness is important to our society. But the prerequisite of fairness is that the target behavior should be morally acceptable. For example, if we accept women doing certain crimes while condemning men for doing the same, we would call this unfair because both behaviors are exactly the same.
-The point is, is heterosexual and homosexual relationships truly "the same". I think not, for the most parts. Even in societies in which gay rights are most rampant, homosexual couples are still more likely to break up than heterosexual ones, and homosexuals are still more likely to abuse substances and alcohol than heterosexuals. Therefore, I think I have some good reasons to suggest that these two are NOT the same.
-By the way, don't tell me that these are due to homophobia. Do some goggling and you will find a good number of studies which suggest that homophobia does contribute, but it cannot explain everything.
Conclusion
I don't think homosexuals are giving good reasons for us to accept them (and more importantly, spending so much money to help them). I am not anti-gay, but despite this, the fact is gay activists probably have a hard time justifying their behaviors.
2011年3月21日 星期一
Substance Abuse and Homosexuality
I have always been wondering about the differential treatment substance abusers and homosexuals receive: the former would be advised to get rid of their habits and the latter will be celebrated (mostly by the gay community and SOME psychotherapists). You may ask why this is considered to be a differential treatment. Well, I have got some points here:
1. Both can harm one's health.
-Well, there is no doubt about substance abuse threatening our health. In fact, due to receptive anal sex, gay and bisexual men are about 15 times more likely to get anal cancer. Anal sex is also a very effective way to spread AIDS and many other sexually transmitted diseases. Also, Homosexuals are more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to abuse alchohols or has mental illnesses.
2. Both are to a certain extent, genetic.
-Just do a bit googling and you will find evidence for what I have said.
3. Both are changeable.
-same as the above
How exactly do substance abuse and homosexuality differs from each other such that they deserve such differential treatment?
Counter Argument [Edited]
Recently, I have received a counter-argument against this article, whose content was posted on another blog. This counter-argument goes as follow:
-- It is homosexual people's unhealthy habits that has caused their health problems, therefore what should be treated is these behaviors, rather than homosexuality itself.
Ah really?
There have been various research showing that homosexuality is inherently connected to unhealthy behaviors. For example, there are studies indicating that homosexuals are more likely to have mental health problems and be suicidal even in countries in which homophobia is remarkably low. Some of them even suggested that homosexuals are more likely to have such problems even when homophobia experienced is controlled for. All these implies that social factors cannot explain all mental health problems among homosexuals. Therefore, there are reasons to suggest that unhealthiness is intrinsically associated with homosexuality, although it may not be a direct causes of these problems.
I believe this is a good reasons to treat homosexuality as a mental disorder. As we can see, MANY mental disorders including depression, conduct disorder, anti-social personality disorder don't directly lead to health problems but instead cause the sufferers to act in unhealthy manners. If this counter-argument stands, then we shouldn't treat these problems as mental disorder either, and this will lead to VERY disastrous result.
See: http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html
1. Both can harm one's health.
-Well, there is no doubt about substance abuse threatening our health. In fact, due to receptive anal sex, gay and bisexual men are about 15 times more likely to get anal cancer. Anal sex is also a very effective way to spread AIDS and many other sexually transmitted diseases. Also, Homosexuals are more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to abuse alchohols or has mental illnesses.
2. Both are to a certain extent, genetic.
-Just do a bit googling and you will find evidence for what I have said.
3. Both are changeable.
-same as the above
How exactly do substance abuse and homosexuality differs from each other such that they deserve such differential treatment?
Counter Argument [Edited]
Recently, I have received a counter-argument against this article, whose content was posted on another blog. This counter-argument goes as follow:
-- It is homosexual people's unhealthy habits that has caused their health problems, therefore what should be treated is these behaviors, rather than homosexuality itself.
Ah really?
There have been various research showing that homosexuality is inherently connected to unhealthy behaviors. For example, there are studies indicating that homosexuals are more likely to have mental health problems and be suicidal even in countries in which homophobia is remarkably low. Some of them even suggested that homosexuals are more likely to have such problems even when homophobia experienced is controlled for. All these implies that social factors cannot explain all mental health problems among homosexuals. Therefore, there are reasons to suggest that unhealthiness is intrinsically associated with homosexuality, although it may not be a direct causes of these problems.
I believe this is a good reasons to treat homosexuality as a mental disorder. As we can see, MANY mental disorders including depression, conduct disorder, anti-social personality disorder don't directly lead to health problems but instead cause the sufferers to act in unhealthy manners. If this counter-argument stands, then we shouldn't treat these problems as mental disorder either, and this will lead to VERY disastrous result.
See: http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html
2011年3月19日 星期六
Why women hate Logics
I guess many men know that it is usually a waste of time to try to reason objectively with women, since most of the time women would just emote in an irrational manner and made all the basic logical mistakes you can think of. Still, it is interesting to ask why, women, STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, are so incapable of reasoning from a logical and objective point of view. Recently, I have thought of an evolutionary explanation for it.
First, we need to know what kinds of things women depend on, since an organism develop an aversion towards a certain thing usually because the target threatens its survival and seeing what women rely on will tell us what method they used to survive. To know this, we need to look at what women are good at (statistically speaking, of course). 48 hours after birth, baby girls begin to pay more attention to human faces than baby boys. Girls and women talk much more about relationships and feelings than boys and men, and they are better at verbal and non-verbal communication. All in all, the female gender is more "social" than the other. In other words, females survive on manipulating other people, relative to males and statistically speaking. To manipulate others, you need to induce appropiate emotions in them, so that they will be motivated to do what you want them to do. Say, to get a man to help her beat up another man she dislikes, a woman need to induce anger in her man (e.g. "He touched my breasts!"). In other words, women thrive by creating affective states in people, particularly men (but bear in mind that these aren't neccessarily intelligent behaviors).
The point is that, logic would prevent this from happening. Back to the previous example, if the man question the woman, say, by asking her if she could provide any evidence that the target has indeed, groped her, her agenda is over. Similarly, if men begin to aks questions about the things Angry Harry mentioned (http://www.angryharry.com/), women can no longer acquire the disproportionate advantages they are currently having. That's why women are evolutionarily designed to reject logical and objective reasoning, because if they let men question them in an objective manner, they are doomed. The mechanism that promotes their survival is their horrifying tandrums when men attempt to use logics and reasons to make decisions.
Of course a scientific theory needs testing. My theory would predict that women should be particularly likely to emote in irrational manner when it comes to issues that affect them personally, say, feminist issues. Please bear in mind that I am talking about women in ancient times, not nowaday women. And I have to remind you that to break an argument, you need to either show that it is not valid, you may also choose to show that its premises are not correct, but personal attack won't break an argument, okay?
Lastly, what I am saying about women is STATISTICAL. This means that I won't say anything about individual women, and of course I admit that SOME women are indeed capable of rational thinking, but it is just that such thinking pattern is much more prevalent in males than in females.
By the way, anyone has thought of some other ways to test this theory?
First, we need to know what kinds of things women depend on, since an organism develop an aversion towards a certain thing usually because the target threatens its survival and seeing what women rely on will tell us what method they used to survive. To know this, we need to look at what women are good at (statistically speaking, of course). 48 hours after birth, baby girls begin to pay more attention to human faces than baby boys. Girls and women talk much more about relationships and feelings than boys and men, and they are better at verbal and non-verbal communication. All in all, the female gender is more "social" than the other. In other words, females survive on manipulating other people, relative to males and statistically speaking. To manipulate others, you need to induce appropiate emotions in them, so that they will be motivated to do what you want them to do. Say, to get a man to help her beat up another man she dislikes, a woman need to induce anger in her man (e.g. "He touched my breasts!"). In other words, women thrive by creating affective states in people, particularly men (but bear in mind that these aren't neccessarily intelligent behaviors).
The point is that, logic would prevent this from happening. Back to the previous example, if the man question the woman, say, by asking her if she could provide any evidence that the target has indeed, groped her, her agenda is over. Similarly, if men begin to aks questions about the things Angry Harry mentioned (http://www.angryharry.com/), women can no longer acquire the disproportionate advantages they are currently having. That's why women are evolutionarily designed to reject logical and objective reasoning, because if they let men question them in an objective manner, they are doomed. The mechanism that promotes their survival is their horrifying tandrums when men attempt to use logics and reasons to make decisions.
Of course a scientific theory needs testing. My theory would predict that women should be particularly likely to emote in irrational manner when it comes to issues that affect them personally, say, feminist issues. Please bear in mind that I am talking about women in ancient times, not nowaday women. And I have to remind you that to break an argument, you need to either show that it is not valid, you may also choose to show that its premises are not correct, but personal attack won't break an argument, okay?
Lastly, what I am saying about women is STATISTICAL. This means that I won't say anything about individual women, and of course I admit that SOME women are indeed capable of rational thinking, but it is just that such thinking pattern is much more prevalent in males than in females.
By the way, anyone has thought of some other ways to test this theory?
2011年3月18日 星期五
"Pornography degrades Women" and Dumbness
Feminists (and many women) freak out every time when they heard the word "pornography". When I ask them why they hate porns so much, they ALWAYS say that this is because porn degrades women, and the following two are the most common arguments they give (for the rest of the things they said, I am not sure would those words even qualify as arguments). Let's explore them a bit, shall we?
Common Argument 1
Porns are treating women as inanimate objects.
-Heterosexual men watch porns and they want to have sex with those porn actresses. This suggests that porns are NOT treating women as inanimate objects. If men are seeing these women as objects rather than humans, why would they want to have sex with these women? I guess the majority of heterosexual men are not paraphilics.
Common Argument 2
Porns are incomprehensive depiction of women.
-If this argument stands, it would be a VERY disastrous result, you know? Almost all movies, novels and so on are incomprehensive depiction of certain classes of people (To reach "comprehensive depiction" of a certain group, you will need a really BIG cast), and thus are degrading certain classes of people. For instance, the movie "MONSTERS" (2010) shown the leading actor being a photographer, according to feminist logic, the film is degrading men because it is not showing all types of behaviors men can engage in. Sound ridiculous, isn't it? Similarly, do depicting women having sexual values NECESSARILY mean that they are of no other values? I think not.
Conclusion
I don't think porngraphy has anything to do with the degradation of women, and I am really getting tired of women and the illogical arguments they give. I also wish to figure out some ways to help women get rid of their habit of replacing logics with feelings and emotions. Of course there are other arguments against porn proposed by women and feminists, but these two are the ones I saw most frequently (in real life), I will probably address the rest of them in the future.
Common Argument 1
Porns are treating women as inanimate objects.
-Heterosexual men watch porns and they want to have sex with those porn actresses. This suggests that porns are NOT treating women as inanimate objects. If men are seeing these women as objects rather than humans, why would they want to have sex with these women? I guess the majority of heterosexual men are not paraphilics.
Common Argument 2
Porns are incomprehensive depiction of women.
-If this argument stands, it would be a VERY disastrous result, you know? Almost all movies, novels and so on are incomprehensive depiction of certain classes of people (To reach "comprehensive depiction" of a certain group, you will need a really BIG cast), and thus are degrading certain classes of people. For instance, the movie "MONSTERS" (2010) shown the leading actor being a photographer, according to feminist logic, the film is degrading men because it is not showing all types of behaviors men can engage in. Sound ridiculous, isn't it? Similarly, do depicting women having sexual values NECESSARILY mean that they are of no other values? I think not.
Conclusion
I don't think porngraphy has anything to do with the degradation of women, and I am really getting tired of women and the illogical arguments they give. I also wish to figure out some ways to help women get rid of their habit of replacing logics with feelings and emotions. Of course there are other arguments against porn proposed by women and feminists, but these two are the ones I saw most frequently (in real life), I will probably address the rest of them in the future.
The Not-so-beautiful Side of Women and Feminists
Feminists (and many women) always keep saying that men are oppressing women and that they need liberation. Ah really? Let's see how the Oxford Dictionary define the word "oppress":
mass noun
mass noun
- prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority:a region shattered by oppression and killing
- the state of being subject to oppressive treatment:a response to collective poverty and oppression
- mental pressure or distress:Beatrice's mood had initially been alarm and a sense of oppression
Let's see some facts, shall we?
I have read some articles from Angry Harry:
http://www.angryharry.com/notefeminismforstudents.htm#mis
He has given some good points to consider indeed.
http://www.angryharry.com/notefeminismforstudents.htm#mis
He has given some good points to consider indeed.
-Around 8 times more money are being spent on women's health than on men's health, in all parts of the worlds.
-Women who verbally, emotionally or even physically abuse their husbands are treated as mental patients, while men who do the same are imprisoned and condemned.
-Girls are now doing better at school, when they performed worse several decades ago, they claimed that this is because of "male oppression". Now, they don't say anything about helping the boys.
-Research has consistently found that males are treated more harshly for the same crimes than females, but no one cares.
-Research has consistently found that males are treated more harshly for the same crimes than females, but no one cares.
-Televisions and video games cause more detrimental effects on the academic performance of boys than on girls, but no one cares.
-Examinations actually favor females. Despite the fact that overall females are not more intelligent, they are MUCH better at answering moderately difficult questions within a short time.
-Examinations actually favor females. Despite the fact that overall females are not more intelligent, they are MUCH better at answering moderately difficult questions within a short time.
-The vast majority of victims of most crimes are men, but it is always the female victims that get most of the attention, and more importantly the resources.
-Mothers are more likely than fathers to get custody, despite the fact that mothers overall are more likely to abuse their children.
(Fathers are more prone to sexually abuse their children, but mothers completely outnumber fathers when it comes to other types of abuse)
-Mothers are more likely than fathers to get custody, despite the fact that mothers overall are more likely to abuse their children.
(Fathers are more prone to sexually abuse their children, but mothers completely outnumber fathers when it comes to other types of abuse)
These things are REALLY fair, aren't they?
And feminists say that they are seeking equality?
Are women the innocent angels they portray themselves to be?
Are women the innocent angels they portray themselves to be?
They ARE lying.
Conclusion
Conclusion
Back to our definition of "oppression", after reading Angry Harry, I begin to think that men, not women, are the one being oppressed, indeed. Yet, feminists would keep shouting that women are being oppressed by men and the majority of women pretend that nothing is wrong. Then women claim that they are the fairer sex.
Hm, someone asked me why I dislike feminists even on a personal level. This is why.
Hm, someone asked me why I dislike feminists even on a personal level. This is why.
Why should we accept Homosexuality?
Well, I guess many of you have heard of gay right activists giving arguments to justify homosexuality. I have also seen many of such attempts. After some reading, I have found that so far, almost all of the ones I have seen are variations of the following three arguments.
Argument 1
Homosexuality is inborn, so it is justifiable.
-Hm, I can think of a hxll lot of problems with this argument.
a) I have done some reading. Although quite a lot of twin studies and so on have shown that genes can influence sexual orientation, homosexuality is NOT completely genetic in origin. This means that the first premise is not correct.
b) This argument has a hidden premise: things that are inborn are justifiable. Anyone who has read some psychology will know that many other behaviors such as serial murder and violence are also to a certain extent, genetic in origin. Does this means that these behaviors are also justifiable? I guess not.
Argument 2
Homosexuality can't be changed, so it must be accepted.
-This argument is pretty similar to the last one. And the problems with it are also quite similar to those with the first argument.
a) NARTH (link: http://narth.com/) has reported that they has acheived some success about changing sexual orientation.I won't go into details here, but if you are interested, you could go to their website.
b) Being unchangeable doesn't make a behavior justifiable. Say, humans' tendency to reject those who are different is also large unchangeable. Following this logic, we shouldn't get rid of discrimination.
Argument 3
Homosexuality exists in animals, so it is natural.
-Since when did animals became standards of morality? Things that are 'natural' aren't neccessarily good. If this is true, why not we go live in caves or eat raw meats?
Conclusion
It is very hard to find gay activists that can give appropiate justifications for their behaviors. To a certain extent, I would say that gay activists, like feminists, are promoting illogical thinking. Well, this doesn't neccessarily means that we need to get rid of them, but I think they need to change their argumentative style a bit, don't they?
Argument 1
Homosexuality is inborn, so it is justifiable.
-Hm, I can think of a hxll lot of problems with this argument.
a) I have done some reading. Although quite a lot of twin studies and so on have shown that genes can influence sexual orientation, homosexuality is NOT completely genetic in origin. This means that the first premise is not correct.
b) This argument has a hidden premise: things that are inborn are justifiable. Anyone who has read some psychology will know that many other behaviors such as serial murder and violence are also to a certain extent, genetic in origin. Does this means that these behaviors are also justifiable? I guess not.
Argument 2
Homosexuality can't be changed, so it must be accepted.
-This argument is pretty similar to the last one. And the problems with it are also quite similar to those with the first argument.
a) NARTH (link: http://narth.com/) has reported that they has acheived some success about changing sexual orientation.I won't go into details here, but if you are interested, you could go to their website.
b) Being unchangeable doesn't make a behavior justifiable. Say, humans' tendency to reject those who are different is also large unchangeable. Following this logic, we shouldn't get rid of discrimination.
Argument 3
Homosexuality exists in animals, so it is natural.
-Since when did animals became standards of morality? Things that are 'natural' aren't neccessarily good. If this is true, why not we go live in caves or eat raw meats?
Conclusion
It is very hard to find gay activists that can give appropiate justifications for their behaviors. To a certain extent, I would say that gay activists, like feminists, are promoting illogical thinking. Well, this doesn't neccessarily means that we need to get rid of them, but I think they need to change their argumentative style a bit, don't they?
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)