NationStates

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:00 pm**

Four-sided Triangles wrote:
New Sapienta wrote:Really?I mean really?

Yes, because all sex is rape.

So people should just stop?

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:01 pm**

Four-sided Triangles wrote:It really doesn't. Someone enjoying something is insufficient justification.

You're jumping from (perceived) epistemological uncertainty on the matter of consent to an absurd position of moral blame.

Consider:

I cannot be certain that I am consistently being deceived in regards to my senses.

It is conceivable, then, that my willing my body to action results, in reality, with my hurting another. Every time I think that I am walking forward, I am actually kicking a child in the face.

Therefore, taking any action is immoral.

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:01 pm**

Four-sided Triangles wrote:
Motuka wrote:It requires that free will be false.

I've found that whenever people start making arguments that require the negation of free will I sort of tune out. That debate's a festering pit of logical fallacies (mostly, affirming the consequent).

How is it a fallacy to reject free will?

It's not a fallacy in itself, but the arguments often prove fallacious:

"Free will doesn't exist."
"I disagree with that assertion. I chose to respond to this argument. Nobody forced me to do it."
"You're wrong. You were led to respond by a combination of social factors and biology."

And things continue in this fashion. Those who disbelieve in free will find that everything that apparently "disproves" free will is in fact predetermined, whereas those who believe in free will wind up with strings of tautologies. It's basically the equivalent of coming to a conclusion and then looking for data to support it rather than the other way round, and it always irritates me when people do that.

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:01 pm**

The Deleted Chris wrote:Sorry, really?

Yes. Without free will, which is basically philosophically impossible, there is no consent, so all sex is non-consensual.

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:01 pm**

Femnipotent wrote:
Norstal wrote:Depends on what you view as feminist or masculinist. If you explained this earlier, sorry I don't have the heart to trawl back the 11 pages of the thread.

I would try just living in a women's shelter. Those are usually free, I think. Does the 6 months have to be continuous? If not, you can rent out an RV for one month and live somewhere isolated, then do it again once you have the money.

I don't need to live in one, I work at one, but a woman's shelter is not actually the best place to deconstruct gender roles as the women there are just struggling to survive and don't have the luxury of such intellectual explorations yet.

Yeah, I just realized that was a bad suggestion.

There really aren't many places where you can do this, really. Although, I think the best place to go is somewhere foreign, somewhere you would be isolated socially, but not physically if you know what I mean. It'll be like starting a new life in that culture.

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:02 pm**

New Sapienta wrote:So people should just stop?

Yes. Look, I'm not asexual either. This requires some sacrifice on my part as well.

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:03 pm**

Hydesland wrote:
So anyone who presents something (very thoroughly well sourced and argued by the way) that differs from your fundamental preconceptions is to be ignored? You want this whole thread to just be a circle jerk?

Edit:

Forget it. Tahar Joblis is not someone that there is any point having a discussion on this with.

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:03 pm**

Femnipotent wrote:
Ashmoria wrote:HOW will you do feminist seperatism?

exactly what do you intend to do?

Thanks for asking, I did not want to make the first post a huge, rambling novel that absolutely no one would read.

I want to be as physically removed from men and male influence as possible. However, I live in a large city and do not have the means to actually truly physically isolate myself, so I have to find other means.

There is a very large Orthodox Jewish community here and while they live among non-Jews, they manage to 'avoid' them very well. Orthodox Jewish men are not allowed, for example, to speak to or even look at non-Jewish women. So when you walk by them on the street, they merely ignore your presence. I have no doubt that after a lifetime of practice, they literally do not even take note of your presence anymore. This is one skill I wish to cultivate to help me when I am outside my home and unable to physically avoid men.

My job is fine, because I work only with women and female clients, so that is a good space for me.

To further avoid male influence, I have already given my television to a friend and I do not consume print media anyway so that should be easy.

I am looking now for more suggestions as to how I can accomplish this.

I could give you advice, but as a male, I guess that'd just taint the whole experiment.

As a radical feminist myself, I don't have a lot of sympathy for your Quixotic attempts at avoiding "male influence."

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:03 pm**

Four-sided Triangles wrote:
New Sapienta wrote:So people should just stop?

Yes. Look, I'm not asexual either. This requires some sacrifice on my part as well.

What happens when the population starts to decline?

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:03 pm**

Four-sided Triangles wrote:
The Deleted Chris wrote:Sorry, really?

Yes. Without free will, which is basically philosophically impossible, there is no consent, so all sex is non-consensual.

Could I suggest you pour yourself a gin and tonic and relax a little? Or stop extrapolating your own sexual failures and foibles into a batshit stupid theory?

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:04 pm**

Nazis in Space wrote:
Demonatrix wrote:[...]straight women who associate with men because they have "internalised their male imposed feelings of inferiority[...]
The use of 'Internalised their male' in this context made me giggle.

Yeah? Replace the word male with "battery operated personal massage device", it gets even funnier...

What really gets me laughing is the whole concept of an oppressed individual who has revealed in dribs and drabs, alomost as if leaking information to create a game lure trail, enough data to suggest a nice comfortable middle class background, with a decent education, and a nice well paid job in the professional specialty charity sector, who has suddenly decided that they are a martyr, deserving special treatment, while pushing a message of almost universal intolerance that thankfully is quite rare, as otherwise it would set back the fight against sexism and racism by several hundred years.

I somehow doubt that working for a feminist charity poses that much chance of having to worry about male domination in the workplace. It's not at all like trying to make a decent living and get a fair chance at the promotion ladder, in a male dominated field such as IT or the military for example.

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:05 pm**

Four-sided Triangles wrote:
New Sapienta wrote:So people should just stop?

Yes. Look, I'm not asexual either. This requires some sacrifice on my part as well.

I would venture that your views are skewed due to admitted erotophobia, however.

Not meant as an ad hominem attack, just acknowledging that one's views are inevitably affected by biology and circumstances. ;)

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:05 pm**

... Look your troll thread got shot down by mods three times.

Your response? Hijack another.

We are having an interesting argument here... So shush.

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:06 pm**

New Sapienta wrote:What happens when the population starts to decline?

I'm in favor of expanding and improving upon cloning technology.

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:06 pm**

Four-sided Triangles wrote:Without free will, which is basically philosophically impossible, there is no consent, so all sex is non-consensual.

Firstly, there's a great deal of argument in favour of free will. Compatibalism - particularly Dennet's account - is highly persuasive.

Secondly, if there is no reasonable account of free will, there is no such thing as non-consensual actions, as not giving consent is as much a product of the will as giving consent. Non-consensual infringement on persons only make sense in a world where consent can be given by said persons.

EDIT: Emerald Legion has a point, and this is a hijack (of which I'm contributing to).

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:07 pm**

Four-sided Triangles wrote:
Nazis in Space wrote:

And sometimes teenagers enjoy getting fucked by their teachers. Does that make it okay?

Providing highly specific fringe-examples when you're making a universal claim isn't going to cut it, I'm afraid. And that's not even touching the issue of missrepresenting what I wrote - mutual enjoyment - and implying that I meant something that amounts to 'Right of the strongest'.

You'll have to provide a universal reason as for why mutual enjoyment of something that only effects the involved parties is bad and not justification for engaging in such activities.

There are in fact reasons for such denied, typically of a metaphysical nature - I.e. 'God says that sodomy is bad, therefore homos getting it on is bad' -, it's just that such reasons, being metaphysical in nature, fly straight in the face of logic and pretty much just out you as a bigot.

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:07 pm**

Four-sided Triangles wrote:
The Deleted Chris wrote:Sorry, really?

Yes. Without free will, which is basically philosophically impossible, there is no consent, so all sex is non-consensual.

You are way too smart to be seriously taking the position that the absence of free will implies the absence of choice.

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:07 pm**

Four-sided Triangles wrote:
New Sapienta wrote:What happens when the population starts to decline?

I'm in favor of expanding and improving upon cloning technology.

But now, how do you know if someone consents to be cloned?

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:08 pm**

Trotskylvania wrote:
Four-sided Triangles wrote:
Yes. Without free will, which is basically philosophically impossible, there is no consent, so all sex is non-consensual.

You are way too smart to be seriously taking the position that the absence of free will implies the absence of choice.

If I'm correct, this would fatalism wouldn't it? Seems weird someone would ascribe to such a non-scientific philosophical theory.

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:09 pm**

Trotskylvania wrote:You are way too smart to be seriously taking the position that the absence of free will implies the absence of choice.

Please explain how to define consent then.

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:09 pm**

Fine then, just TG me so the mods don't get even more pissed.

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:09 pm**

Norstal wrote:
Four-sided Triangles wrote:
I'm in favor of expanding and improving upon cloning technology.

But now, how do you know if someone consents to be cloned?

In fact, how do you know if someone consents to anything?
Now everything is immoral.

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:10 pm**

Ashmoria wrote:
did you read what i wrote.

she will still relate to them as men using her own societal programming. she is trying to get away from that to see what she is/how she would behave in a situation where there are no men to worry about in any way including her own ways.

its 6 months, not forever. she isnt going to set up a quebecois matriarchy.

So before I get sidetracked trying to catch up, I went shopping and attempted to use that 'filter' that I imagine Orthodox Jewish men using, you know except I was trying to use it on me.

Okay that was extremely difficult. First of all I found myself being hyper aware of every man that I walked by. I realised just how many I was surrounded by. That was awkward, so I focused first on the ground, then when that didn't work I looked to the side when I passed, and when that didn't work I tried to shift my attention to the women around me instead. At which point I became hyper aware of the way those women were dressed.

Our market is very small and cramped so avoiding men was not really an option. Going to have to figure out how to filter better. It was nerve-wracking.

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:10 pm**

The Emerald Legion wrote:... Look your troll thread got shot down by mods three times.

Your response? Hijack another.

We are having an interesting argument here... So shush.

Mods are self-important dicks, and it's a slightly interesting argument anyway. But, I admit, not as interesting as this one.

So yeah, back on the wagon with me.

Femnipotent wrote:
Ashmoria wrote:
did you read what i wrote.

she will still relate to them as men using her own societal programming. she is trying to get away from that to see what she is/how she would behave in a situation where there are no men to worry about in any way including her own ways.

its 6 months, not forever. she isnt going to set up a quebecois matriarchy.

So before I get sidetracked trying to catch up, I went shopping and attempted to use that 'filter' that I imagine Orthodox Jewish men using, you know except I was trying to use it on me.

Okay that was extremely difficult. First of all I found myself being hyper aware of every man that I walked by. I realised just how many I was surrounded by. That was awkward, so I focused first on the ground, then when that didn't work I looked to the side when I passed, and when that didn't work I tried to shift my attention to the women around me instead. At which point I became hyper aware of the way those women were dressed.

Our market is very small and cramped so avoiding men was not really an option. Going to have to figure out how to filter better. It was nerve-wracking.

It's reminiscent of the old philosophical conundrum in many ways -- quick! Don't think of an elephant!

Did you think of an elephant? Maybe. Quite probably.
Were you thinking of an elephant before I told you not to? Pretty unlikely.

The problem is that the "filter" is subconscious. Sort of like all the filters that make it possible for us to live in cities in the first place, so that our senses aren't overwhelmed by all the sights and sounds and smells that assail us 24/7. Having lived in two of the world's biggest cities, each time I've found that I don't realise how much I filter my surroundings until I'm outside the city -- and the longer I spend away from it, the harder it is to acclimatize when I get back.

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:11 pm**

Motuka wrote:Mods are self-important dicks, and it's a slightly interesting argument anyway. But, I admit, not as interesting as this one.

So yeah, back on the wagon with me. Sorry, UT.

I'm not UT.

NationStates

Engaging in separatist feminism