File: 1567026776216.jpg (371.14 KB, 566x720, 283:360, ef2.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Lets give two hypothetical scenarios: 92 posts and 15 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Let's say, science discovers a way for two women to reproduce with each other. The result is always a baby girl and the women born from this process are able to repeat it and reproduce with other women as well, when they reach sexual maturity.
Now let's also say that, through some mechanism, it was possible for a person to quickly rid the world of all human males, in such a way that no one would be able to stop the process once begun. All biological men would suddenly disappear from the Earth and cease to exist.
Would women alone create a better society than the current one? A "better" society in this context meaning a society with less crime, less violence and less inequality for it's members. And if so, would someone be morally right, or even morally obligated to commit this act?
Interesting points. I wonder if Stoicism would be considered individualistic.>>1481>And it was asking if WOMEN would be morally obligated to push the button
Also, OP wants to know if you're a man or a woman.
>>1500>Black people are not inherenly more criminal, and that's a racist notion to even suggest
Men are not inhernently more criminal, and that's a sexist notion to even suggest.> The differences in crime statistics are due to other factors, not genetic traits that lend themselves to skin color.
The differences in crime statistics are due to other factors, not genetic traits that lend themselves to gender.>But with these other statistics, the differences are genetic. It's because of men's differing levels of aggression and physical strength.
But with these other statistics, the differences are genetic. It's because of black people's differing levels of aggression and physical strength
Sorry, man. I don't see a difference at all.
And for all we know, the elevated criminality of men is due to "other factors".
It's a bit of a silly argument to make, honestly.
Like, he justifies one form of bigotry, but if you use the exact same kind of arguments for another, he'll disagree, calling it a 'racist notion'.
I don't disagree it's a 'racist notion', but, I also think his angle on men is a 'sexist notion'.>>1503
I'm afraid I'm not super well versed in stoicism.
What do you mean exactly?
It's relevant to the principle of the topic, given that you've decided to dismiss some people's statistics, while allowing yourself to propagate your own.
If you're going to say you feel like he's trying to derail, I'm going to say you're trying to dodge the argument.
I'm not really comfortable with the separation of other races with "human". Seems a rather dangerous notion.
To clarify here, though: If
there were such a study, you'd be fine with the exact same OP?
I guess I can commend you for sticking with your principles. Just seems a dangerous outlook to me.
All this says is that they have higher testosterone levels in relation to prostate cancer
, not aggression. It does not show that higher testosterone levels unequivocally equate to higher levels of aggression. Testosterone levels can vary from man to man. >>1511
You are really taking this line of query into places we were already warned not to go in >>1414
if you continue with trying to show a link between race and criminal activity or aggression, I'm going to end this conversation.
I think the differences between the sexes are vastly different than the differences between races. "Race" may not even be a real thing, as skin color and other outward traits are not good ways of classifying humans or their genetic make up. A "white" person and a "black" person could be more genetically similar to each other than two "black" people, based on many different factors.
The differences between me and women, however are far more pronounced and measurable. Women have completely different hormones in their bodies for example. Black men and white men do not. >>1510
I don't think the OP would be applicable to that line of thought for the reasons I listed above.
it's really hard not to take the conversation down this lines when we're talking about principles.
If one is acceptable, so is the other.
Frankly, if the stuff don't like where the conversation is going, they should have deleted the threat to begin with, because the entire premise is built around the same thing.
I'm afraid it's not very reassuring, given that you are arguing quantity essentially as opposed to principal.
if there were no men, and only women, that scale would look a lot heavier, I wager. if you've already justified eugenics towards one particular subset of the population, I don't see any reason why you wouldn't end up making the same exact argument using the same exact principles for another subset.
File: 1567371860753.jpg (166.86 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, Fillyflutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
This post, and the posts that follow, were reported as being rules violations pretaining to racism.
The staff has reviewed this report, the posts in question, and concurs in part.
The staff has determined this post and subsequent posts to be violations of Rules 3 and 4.
Rule 3 has been violated due to the inclusion of dehumanizing rhetoric.
The staff has also invoked Rule 4, due either to the lack of any effort on the user to fact check their arguments in order to preserve the good faith nature of the discussion, or to refrain from bad-faith misrepresentation.Racialism
, sometimes euphemistically called "scientific racism" is perhaps the
preeminent pseudoscience argued in bad faith by those with racist beliefs. The arguments inferred and made in the reported posts invoke this pseudoscience, despite constant and comprehensive rejection of this pseudoscience by the concensus of reputable scholars oh the subject since the 1930's.
Such an argument can be made only in light of the most profound ignorance, or otherwise by intention of malice.
The staff does not wish to imply one or the other is true of the user, but instead issues this warning, reminding this user, and other users, that the site takes a very hard stance against dehumanizing rhetoric made in complete seriousness, particularly here on Townhall.
>>1513>It does not show that higher testosterone levels unequivocally equate to higher levels of aggression.
It's well known that higher testosterone is correlated with higher aggression in mammals. Like, you can easily google this and find lots of research results.>>1513>You are really taking this line of query into places we were already warned not to go in >>1414
Whoa there, I'm not the one suggesting eliminating an entire class of people. I never once suggested that it would be okay to kill off a race simply because their mean IQ is less than that of another race or their mean aggression is greater than another race. In fact I think it would be morally abhorrent.>>1513> if you continue with trying to show a link between race and criminal activity or aggression, I'm going to end this conversation.
Kinda convenient for you to respond like that when I ask you for evidence supporting your claims.
>>1518>Rule 3 has been violated due to the inclusion of dehumanizing rhetoric.
How so? Wouldn't the OP post and >>1405
also be "dehumanizing" by that standard?>>1518>Such an argument can be made only in light of the most profound ignorance, or otherwise by intention of malice.
Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, but, in the context of all this long line of posts, the point I was trying to make is that Falcon's argument is just as garbage as this 'scientific racism'.
So to clarify, it's okay to dehumanize a specific gender, but not any race in the exact same way?
I'm sorry, but, this is a clear case of you guys holding two separate standards to two separate types of behavior. If it is not acceptable to dehumanize a race, in this manner, then it should not be acceptable to do it to a gender as is the entire premise of this thread.
Precisely. Personally I would agree with the idea that there are some sets of differences between people of different races, just in the same way as there are differences between people of different genders. The question is more or less how much is that to do with societal issues, as opposed to biological. The fact is, either way, we don't really know for certain. and personally, I say that shouldn't really much.
It shouldn't be viewed as dehumanizing to site differences between people. It doesn't make one individual lesser than another. Not unless you're OP I guess, and you're talking about genociding all men.
That's a valid stance to have, and you're not the first person in the thread to have it.
So your stance is that the differences between men and women are societal and not biological? Which differences does this apply to?>>1523
"scientific racism" has been debunked and called into question by numerous people and groups. It's also been historically used to justify treating other races as inferior.
The differences between crime levels between the sexes has not, as far as I know. Women have never used these statistics to try and make the claim that men are inferior to women. Atleast, no women in any positions of authority or power have used it to actively hinder any men.
and you are literally using your statistics to argue that men are so inferior that they deserve to be wiped out from all existence.
you are right that it has been used in the past to justify horrific actions. Mainly by people who seem to have the same values and ideals as you do.
it's why now the subject is so taboo. Unfortunately very many people don't understand that just because something is statistically different from you, doesn't mean the individual actually is.
You even say as much earlier. You acknowledge that not all men are violent. but that doesn't seem to stop you from asking me if we should wipe them from existence because of the supposed crimes inherent in men.
It's rather hilarious that you sit around making the case that it's fine to make sweeping generalizations about the inferiority of men because it hasn't been done historically to advocate their extermination, while literally doing exactly that.
plus, if I'm entirely up front with you, I'm not actually convinced the scientific study has actually been debunked, rather it seems to me that it had been so heavily pounded into the dirt that it is morally wrong to ever even suggest there is a difference between races at this point. Especially within the educational systems where these things are supposed to be primarily studied.
Like I said, it shouldn't matter, but, it seems to me that the dismissal is primarily political not actually scientific.
Certainly if nothing else the condemnation and declaration that it can never ever be spoken of is entirely political. It's why, for example, it's okay to make a thread advocating for the genocide of men, but it's not okay to make up for it advocating for the genocide of black people.
personally I would say it should be okay to do either, but, that's just me I guess.
Regardless, examining studies and statistics shouldn't immediately make you a racist, or label us as dehumanizing.
To put it in d&d terms oh, the best way I can describe it is, you can have an orc spellcaster, a kobold barbarian, and a troll rogue.
The kobold might be more suited to being a rogue, with his natural Dex increase, but that's irrelevant. He is not a row. and while he doesn't have the bonuses to strength that the orc does, that does not mean he is incapable as a barbarian. He can be just as powerful as a barbarian orc. statistically, kobold might not make it high in the top barbarians, but, for the individual, like that individual kobold barbarian, that is irrelevant.
>>1529>Women have never used these statistics to try and make the claim that men are inferior to women.
Give me a break. You just made that exact claim in >>1404
and you even went as far as hinting that men should be genocided.
This is a hypothetical, one that is intentionally hyperbolic and fantastical. I have no power to do anything in the OP, nor would I do so if I did have that power. I am male myself, eradicating all male people would destroy me and people I care for.
I asked this hypothetical not because I want it to happen. That should be obvious. I'm asking because it is a morally-charged question to get differing views on. Removing men from society would create a society with less crime and violence because men commit the majority of those things. it's a "do the ends justify the means" kind of question. One with no right or wrong answer. >>1532
I'm not a woman. Nor am I "women", as in the majority of female humans. I also did not make any claims of inferiority or superiority, as I've explained a few times now.
So I can make the exact same thread using the exact same arguments avocation the genocide of black people, right?
That'd be morally okay with you?
I don't care whether something is hypothetical or done, really. The principle is still there same
>>1533>I also did not make any claims of inferiority or superiority, as I've explained a few times now.
You did the same thing others did with black people, but argued it was somehow different when it wasn't.
Just because you feel something is the case doesn't mean it's actually true.
This is why I tried to build off of principle. Principles can be consistent. If I say one thing is okay one way, that means it is okay to do it another way. After all, it would be horrifically hypocritical of me to claim otherwise.
My stance is that authorities exist because of an essential social contract between those The authority ends up governing specifically for the purposes of preservation of their security and rights.
Basically, I am obligated to listen to authority so long as it is just, and acts in my interests. Ideally, this would be established for a larger whole through some kind of democratic process.
You keep using the word "genocide" and I feel like that's an attempt to poison the well. That's a loaded term which I don't feel really applies to the the fantastical scenario presented in the OP.>>1536
But you can't just universally apply something to everything. That's like assuming that because peanut butter is good on toast, it would be good on pizza.
>>1533>I'm not a woman.
So what? >Nor am I "women", as in the majority of female humans.
Again, so what? The mass elimination of an entire class of people is just as morally abhorrent regardless or who proposes it.>>1533>I also did not make any claims of inferiority or superiority, as I've explained a few times now.
An explanation that makes zero sense, as has been pointed out to you a few times now.
>>1538>"let's also say that, through some mechanism, it was possible for a person to quickly rid the world of all human males, in such a way that no one would be able to stop the process once begun. All biological men would suddenly disappear from the Earth and cease to exist. "
What would you call that, if not genocide?
it's a willful act to get rid of an entire stretch of the population. A specific group of the population.
I genuinely do not understand how anybody could see it as anything other than genocide. In fact I would have assumed you would have accepted that definition, considering what you said.>But you can't just universally apply something to everything.
I would disagree. I think that consistency within ideology is absolutely vital. Otherwise you are essentially ruled just by emotions.
if you have consistent principles, you can apply them to any given situation or scenario. For example, it is not okay to steal.
regardless of the circumstances, even if your child is starving, stealing is still an immoral act. You can have understandable reasons for it, even good reasons for it, but the action itself is still wrong. Thus the term "the ends justify the means", though personally I'm inclined to avoid even that, given how quickly you can justify some horrific items for the sake of a Utopia.
Every society uses enforcement to a degree, some more than others. A factor in how much enforcement is necessary is how well people have internalized the authority's standard.
A society where everyone just followed the rules would require no enforcement and perhaps eventually no ruling body. It would be anarchy.
Sometimes I suspect having rules that not everyone follows (or a leader not everyone can please) gives people something to aspire to. Enforcement is a kind of love, and if people don't get it once in awhile, they feel adrift. I'm not quite sure how to judge that except that people tend to have a very negative view of anarchy.
I'm not sure I agree, but addressing your post would require a discussion the scope of which I think would completely derail this thread.
But if you made a thread about authority and human behavior, I'd be happy to weigh in.
File: 1567378067961.jpg (166.86 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, Fillyflutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
While the OP post might skirt the line a bit, it's not definitely rule breaking.
Nobody is, or can, seriously suggest that we get rid of all males
OP's post qualifies the hypothetical with a few assumed caveats that we all accept aren't true in real life.
It's a sci-fi prompt, in other words, though it does of course stretch that line a bit, the notion of getting rid of all males is as impossible as it is ridiculous... Which is fine, in a sci-fi prompt where such a thing has never happened, and almost certainly will never happen. If, in a thousand years, it becomes a reality and a serious topic, we'll give it greater scrutiny on Ponyville too, as we prepare for MLP Gen 130.
The Racialism posts were not framed in that same hypothetical tone, and it is a topic people take very seriously, and genuinely vouch for. At Ponyville, we take that very seriously and don't want our my little pony community associated with racialist philosophy.
The world has already seen and endured the products of this pseudoscience in action, and the posts made in this thread didnt make any kind of distinction.
Ultimately, there are many factors here that make the reported posts and the op post different, any one of which is enough to make up a difference.
And before anyone goes forth in bad faith to reframe the OP post in terms of Racialism, know that the history and context intrinsic to Racialism is one such a factor that is not present in with the OP post.
Would it be acceptable for me to make the exact same kind of thread, but replacing the word men with black?
I'm going to be straight up with you: this is nonsense.
For the record, I refuse to comply.
I will maintain my argumentation that OPs reasoning is not only invalid and irrational, but dangerous and disastrous as well, with the argument patients that had been made previously using statistics involving those of minority races.
I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of ever standing down to those who advocate genocide just because you're okay with some types of genocidal advacation, but not others even if they are used explicitly to demonstrate the inconsistent and outright dangerous beliefs evidently held by OP.
I'm sorry, but, frankly, this is a line I cannot and will not allow. We should never be okay with advocating for genocide, and we sure as hell should never punish those making arguments against genocide.
File: 1567379094156.jpg (166.86 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, Fillyflutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
that exact point is addressed several times in my post. The answer is no, because the two situations are not similar in a number of determinative factors.
You're male, yes? Do you have ant conceivable reason to fear male genocide? Is there any historical precedent for that? i think, objectively, the two topics are wholly dissimilar. >>1548
...i am afraid, a delicate touch is necessary near powder kegs, and we live in an explosive age
Given what the op has said? if such a technology wherever to come about, yes, I would be worried that individuals who believe what I thought believes would literally tried to genocide me.
he is actively advocating for the genocide, and instead of saying that is not acceptable, you okay it, and refused to allow people to argue against it
I am sorry, Mooney, but this is disgusting behavior. Somebody with your level kindness would never ever stand by something like this. I don't know who understaffed convinced you that this is okay, but it plainly is not.
The history is irrelevant to the principal.
I do not get to say that because it hasn't been done before, it is okay to murder all men.
I sure as fuck do not get to Dodge augmentations made by others, simply because they cite examples that I would disagree with, in a cold and rational manner to explicitly demonstrate that what I am saying is wrong.
This is a horrible thing to argue Mooney.
File: 1567379470130.jpg (11.17 KB, 300x168, 25:14, images.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Refuse to comply with what, exactly? Not being racist? That's all i'm asking. Debate the OP if you wish: the staff doesn't agree with your take that the OP advocates genocide, but we believe you have a right to argue that.
Don't advocate for Racialism - that's the warning we're giving the thread.
For everything else, calm down, for goodness sake. This kind of hellacious anger over is a little ridiculous. >>1551
...but the OP doesn't believe that. That much is stated in the hypothetical,.if you read between the lines.
Nobody reasonable believes that. You are spooking yourself over invisible monsters, and getting angrier and angrier... For what?
Look, just don't bring racism into this debate. That's the point of these mod posts.
...after multiple reports, we're locking this thread. Sorry to all the innocents involved.