No.1404[Last 50 Posts]
File: 1567026776216.jpg (371.14 KB, 566x720, 283:360, ef2.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Lets give two hypothetical scenarios:
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?
Two answer my own question, I believe that women would create a better society without men. Going by statistics in the US in 2011, Men commit 98.9% of forcible rapes and 89.5% of homicides. Those things would nearly cease to exist once men were gone. Not only that, Men commit 87.9% of all robberies and 85.0% of all burglaries. Men commit 77.8% of aggravated assaults, 83% of arson and make up 90% of street gang membership. And of course, wars and armed conflicts are almost always fought by males in vastly overwhelming numbers compared to women combatants.
A world without us has less crime and less violence, to the point it's almost non-existent. As for whether someone would be morally right or obligated to genocide men, I'm not so sure that has an easy answer. But it's clear society would benefit from a lack of men just from a statistical viewpoint.
Could you give me an example of one? I think the statistics in >>1405
show that there a society of all women would be less violent, at the very least.
No. Gender roles exist for a reason. If anything, something very similar to men would appear given a few thousand years.
I think if there were no men, the things men do would be taken up by women. I don't think crimes are committed by men because men are inherently worse, it's because men are expected to do shit, encouraged to be independent and forceful, while women are encouraged to fall in line more, and society is far more accommodating to women in trouble than men. This is based in biology. The species can survive with a very small handful of men, but needs many women. So we've been evolutionary programmed to want to protect women. If women could reproduce with each other, all that goes away. Things might change in the short term, temporarily, but eventually roles would be established. You see this to some extent even in modern lesbian couples. It's common to have a more masculine woman pair with a more feminine woman.
Men commit more crimes for many easily identifiable structural reasons. Men are expected to be resource gatherers and provide for the unit, so if they can't get resources, they're somewhat encouraged to take them by force. Men are typically bigger and stronger, so they're more able to commit crimes against women by through physical intimidation. Men are given less social and legal ability to be caught by social and economic safety nets. The "bad boy" image is one that is lauded, by women
as sexy and attractive, while the image of a docile office worker isn't considered attractive. Men are also expected to initiate romantic and sexual encounters, whereas women are expected to wait, and this largely
Is it not pretty apparent when looking at these things why men commit more crimes? It's because the way things are set up, both socially and biologically, men are expected to do more things in general, while women act as judge and reward. It's not a good system, but it is the system, and those that go outside of it will be punished in various socioeconomic ways.
But then, i wouldn't expect radical feminists to know anything about incentive systems and evolution. No no, you'd sooner advocate genocide than take a moment to consider why things are the way they are. Typical.
That final line is unnecessary and needlessly hostile.
I'm not a "radical feminist", nor am I advocating for violence against men. I am simply putting posing a hypothetical question based on statistics numbers.
Needlessly hostile? You start a thread advocating for literal genocide, or at least one proposing genocide would be a good thing, and i'm the one who's being overly hostile? That's a laugh.>>1411
They literally opened the thread advocating genocide. If someone made a "what if we got rid of all the jews? Would society be better?" I think you're modding the wrong post here...
Those statistics show how things are now, but I think it's difficult to predict how things would be if all men were removed from society. Not to mention that there's reason to cast doubt upon the statistics themselves.
As for whether it would be morally right to genocide men, of course not. No amount of "better society" would be worth the sacrifice of that many lives.
File: 1567031649414.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google
i mean, i can see both points here: replace the words men and women with any other group of people and suddenly this thread isn't looking so good.
i am going to second Zecora's warning, but expand upon it and also note to OP that more careful phrasing is preferred in future OP's so as not to implicate a moral obligation of extermination. There's no place for that here, and if you wanted to bring up this hypothetical, there are much better ways of presenting the actually topic at hand:
Is a women only society better off, or not?
File: 1567031870300.png (434.52 KB, 652x565, 652:565, silly smile 2.png) ImgOps Google
...also, female only races in video games are my favorite.
There is exactly just such a race as proposed in the OP in a game called Sins of a Solar Empire, called the Advent: psychic humans who were exiled from Earth, who return with incredible psychic technology after thousands of years to seek vengeance on the rest of humanity. All of them are women, as females are stronger natural psychics, and the Advent do not need men to reproduce, given their advanced technology.
...also, there is the Asari, and various Amazon warrior factions in other universes. i like women only factions, and prefer to play as women in games too, as they tend to be more empathetic choices.
But... That is totally neither here nor there
File: 1567031918085.png (261.19 KB, 456x461, 456:461, it was me all along.png) ImgOps Google
I'm down if it means death by snoosnoo
But that IS the point of the hypothetical. That's how it's phrased. I even specificy what "better off" means in this context. >>1417
The means by which men stop existing is explicitly non-violent, vague and not really possible. This was intentional, as to not be advocating violence against anyone.
Isn't eugenics the selective breeding of certain individuals in an attempt to have those traits be present in their offspring?
What does that have to do with this hypothetical?
File: 1567034050049.jpg (883.14 KB, 1622x1622, 1:1, 1435642812637.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1404> A "better" society in this context meaning a society with less crime, less violence and less inequality for it's members.
I'm going to reject this definition as flawed, because under this definition, eradicating the entire human race would produce a """better""" society (zero crime, zero violence, zero inequality).>Would women alone create a better society than the current one?
No. Males (both human and other mammals) have greater variability of various traits, including intelligence. A society composed only of women would have significantly fewer extraordinarily intelligent people and thus be stunted in scientific and engineering progress compared to one that includes men. And if we don't make a lot of progress soon in sequestering GHGs from the atmosphere, our species is likely to suffer immensely.>>1408> whereas women are expected to wait, and this largely
Largely what? I think you ended the paragraph prematurely there.>>1415>Funny how you never see anyone advocate for the elimination of all women
Wouldn't that also mean elimination of the human race? Males (pretty much by definition) cannot reproduce without females. Although some wackos do
advocate for the end of the human race (google "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement"), which would of course include women.>>1416>...also, female only races in video games are my favorite.
I think Splatoon was originally going to be like this, but they added male inklings late in the development cycle for some reason.
>>1422>Largely what? I think you ended the paragraph prematurely there.
Yep, and it didn't let me edit!
It largely discourages women from both initiating romantic interests, as well as being proactive or rebellious in general. It explains why a lot of men would act like belligerent asses. It attracts women. I've always said that women are responsible for who they choose to have sexual/romantic relationships with, and they're also responsible for the incentive systems those choices create. I said this before in another thread a few weeks back. If you sell an apple at a penny and an orange at $300, you don't have much right to complain when nobody is buying oranges.
>>1422>>1422>eradicating the entire human race would produce a """better""" society
There cannot be "less crime/violence and less inequality for it's members" if there are no members.>A society composed only of women would have significantly fewer extraordinarily intelligent people
That's... kind of a sexist thing to say. What are you basing that on?>>1421
But the method isn't to "breed out" men. They would just magically not exist anymore. I feel like your'e just using words with negative connotations because you've made assumptions about my hypothetical that aren't actually present.
>>1425>There cannot be "less crime/violence and less inequality for it's members" if there are no members.
Oh, by "for its members", did you mean "per capita"? Well even that's a horribly flawed definition. A society in which everybody is kept drugged with their brains wired into an entertainment system (sorta like in The Matrix
) would be perfect society under that definition.>>1425>That's... kind of a sexist thing to say.
I disagree, but even if you're right, so what? If my statement is true, then it isn't any less true if it is sexist. It being true would just prove that being sexist isn't necessarily wrong. And if my statement is false, then its falseness is much better reason to reject it than a claim that it is "sexist".>>1425>What are you basing that on?
It follows from the sentence immediately preceding the one that you quoted. And here's a paper supporting that proposition:
Lehre, Anne‐Catherine, et al. "Greater intrasex phenotype variability in males than in females is a fundamental aspect of the gender differences in humans." Developmental Psychobiology: The Journal of the International Society for Developmental Psychobiology 51.2 (2009): 198-206. (DOI: 10.1002/dev.20358)
I'd doubt it.
My experiences are that women have rather different drives to men, over all. They seem to have significantly less drive for improvement on the whole, and far less fury to injustice. Meaning I'm inclined to think that a few rotten eggs will take the reins, the underlings won't have the necessary drive to improve and will content themselves with their tasks, and there will not be a significant cry for radial change from tyranny regardless of consequences or costs.
Frankly, while I deeply respect women, and understand that individual women can be movers and changers, on the whole, I think women are uninclined towards significant action.
That's the "whole", mind you.
It leads me to suspect that a society built only by women would stagnate and decay.
Less violent doesn't instantly mean better.
Violence isn't inherently wrong.
What is usually meant by "its sexist" I mean "it sounds like anti-woman rhetoric used to push an agenda, and I am rejecting it as false based on that unless you can prove otherwise." >>1428
I think the existence of things like women's suffrage and the feminist movements of the 60s show that women are very much willing and capable to stand up against tyranny and inequality. >>1429
Violence in and of itself not being "wrong"? That's debatable. But rape, robberies, aggravated assault, arson and gang activity are all things generally considered to be bad and/or wrong.
I said "if" because there's no guarantee that it would.
But if you look at the statistics in >>1405
women commit less crimes for whatever reasons, so maybe they would find ways to deal with the inequality.
Quite possible. Not entirely sure, due to some effects that are biological, as we see often enough with children who are not given any specific encouragement to one set of toys or another.
But, on that note, who knows if such a tendency is going to last over time, anyway? Hard to say how quickly a biological drive like that stays in a group. >>1431
To some degree, but, I'm unconvinced of how wide spread they actually are, even on those instances, and how much of it was an actual push for principle.
Case and point, women are not present in the draft. For some reason, the demand for "equality" did not include unfortunate aspects, such as the standard in judicial judgements, whether that be crime or divorce cases, representation in undesirable jobs, or getting rid of the acceptability of men being the primary supporter and investor in households.
Point being, I'm skeptical about how much was actually women wanting principled values and rights, and how much of it was rather more to do with a few greedier individuals pushing emotion and social pressures to get others on their side.
Maybe I'm just intently pessimistic about people's intent when they fail to continue pressing a supposed principle, though.>>1431
Sure. But that doesn't mean all violence is wrong.
There is quite a wide range of cases where in violence is not only justified but desirable.
and given that we're talking about wiping out men here, I have to be a tad skeptical as to the point, since the primary victims of the crimes you describe are largely men anyway. Exception being towards rape, though that might be a bit more to do with how hard it is poor women to ever end up with that charge. In fact from what I understand in the lot of places, women cannot physically rape by the definition use, as forced envelopment is not considered rape.
of course this is all still using your standard for what a better society is, in any case. Your example didn't seem to bother mentioning liberty, for instance. You can have the quality in a rather totalitarian form where everybody has to essentially do the exact same thing tediously day after day, but I would never consider such a society a good one. Good example is Star trek Borg. It would technically fit your definition for what a better society is. Everybody is equal. Nobody is free.
I suspect the largest part of why they don't is that they don't need to. Look at the stats for female homelessness. They tend to be more readily provided for by men.
I imagine that, at the very least, theft would increase without that provision. After all, theft is primarily done when one wants something but does not have the means to get it otherwise.
File: 1567043568460.png (196.65 KB, 522x915, 174:305, cc5.png) ImgOps Google
>>1431>What is usually meant by "its sexist" I mean "it sounds like anti-woman rhetoric used to push an agenda, and I am rejecting it as false based on that unless you can prove otherwise."
That's a rather odd definition. I've never heard anyone except you just now use the word "sexist" to mean that. In my experience, people usually mean something like "characterized by prejudice or discrimination against people based on their sex".>>1431>Violence in and of itself not being "wrong"? That's debatable.
If someone is in the middle of committing a school shooting, would it be wrong for the police to use violence to stop the mass murderer from killing more people?>>1433>crime only exists because of income inequality.
Are you seriously suggesting that eliminating income equality would stop pedophiles from criminally sexually abusing children?>>1436> In fact from what I understand in the lot of places, women cannot physically rape by the definition use, as forced envelopment is not considered rape.
In most of the US, rape is defined as engaging in sexual intercourse without the other person's consent. Theoretically, a woman can
commit rape under that definition, although practically it would be difficult if the man's penis is flaccid.
File: 1567044933489.png (712.35 KB, 1024x740, 256:185, 1435428791100.png) ImgOps Google
>>1439>Being erect doesn't instantly create consent
Yeah, but it seems fairly well correlated with it.
I would very much disagree. Frankly it seems incredibly reductionist, not to mention, if I'm quite honest, a little bit sexist.
Just because I am a little bit aroused by something doesn't immediately mean but I want it. and I'm fairly certain if you tried to apply this type of thing to women, you would, rightly so I would say, be condemned for it.
File: 1567046899279.png (166.53 KB, 499x431, 499:431, 1520369356490.png) ImgOps Google
>>1441>Just because I am a little bit aroused by something doesn't immediately mean but I want it
Yes, of course. But I'm fairly sure that if you do the statistical analysis on the data, you'll find that being erect and wanting sex with someone are correlated.
>>1438>That's a rather odd definition.
Well, it's not universally what's meant, but it IS what I meant by that statement. >If someone is in the middle of committing a school shooting...
That question in and of itself is a moral debate. Is it right or wrong to a criminal to prevent more crimes. That's why debates on the death penalty and capital punishment exist. I could give you MY opinion on the matter, but it wouldn't make the topic any less debatable. >Are you seriously suggesting that eliminating income equality...
Ok, we are getting tangle in semantics, and I know the squidkid likes to do that. Let me clarify. Crimes like robbery and theft only exist because of income inequality. I didn't specify because we were using "crime" to mean robbery and theft as separate from crimes like statutory rape.
File: 1567047791142.png (409.41 KB, 1000x800, 5:4, inkling-and-glaceon.png) ImgOps Google
And also, shooting in self-defense (and defense of others) is much different than capital punishment.>>1443> Crimes like robbery and theft only exist because of income inequality
OK, that's a more reasonable position. But I still think it is incorrect. Some people will just take things that don't belong to them if they think they can get away with it.
I think that's a different threshold on what constitutes as "violence". I thinking tackling someone isn't necessarily "violence". Violence has to be capable of a certain level of harm to a person that a tackle generally isn't capable of.
In the context of the OP's hypothetical, violence means violent actions related to the crime statistics. Like rape, murder and aggravated assault. A society with less of those things is a "better" society, in this hypothetical. >Some people will just take things that don't belong to them if they think they can get away with it.
Yeah, but that's still motivated by a want that can't be fulfilled. They want a PlayStation 4 and can't get one the legal way. So they take one that doesn't belong to them. If they could get one the legal way, no one would resort the theft.
Huh, that's odd, couldn't sworn I posted a reply to this.
I'd doubt it. Least so long as you exclude porn.
I suspect people often are attracted, even physically excited, but don't have any real desire to pursue further. Certainly that's the case for myself. For some sex means more than just the physical feeling, the pure hormonal attraction. Personally, I intend to have that experience with somebody I actually love, with somebody who I wish to raise kids with. For me, it's quite a lot more than just raw desire in my groin.
Why are we arguing the definition of violence again?
If it's really upsetting you that much, I can amend the original statement to say that a society with less rape, theft, assault, arson, gang activity and war is a "better" society, rather than a "less violent" one.
Without war, America wouldn't exist as it does today, and certainly wouldn't have the rights it enjoyed after that conflict.
I'll agree wars can kill, destroy infrastructure, and divert manpower, but, it isn't like there's no necessity behind the actions taken.
And of course, this is still ignoring new developments in infrastructure, technology, and economy that tends to come after a war. Turns out when you build a lot of factories, discover new technologies, and lower your overall population, new potentials and opportunities arise. Now, naturally, that's far from enough to encourage
war, but, it is something to point to when we declare war is universally bad.
Mind that those effects tend to be only if you win, though.
Personally I rather doubt that.
My experience is that women can be pretty dang hostile at times. In fact most the direct confrontations I've had involved women. Though that's possibly due to the lack of potential consequences, vs a man and a man. Society frowns, for example, on hitting a girl ,regardless of if she hit you first.
Yeah, but that's exactly my point. It was a direct confrontation, but I doubt it got physical.
Most wars have been fought by men, and men commit most violent crimes. So a society of all women would not have war or violent crime because there's no men to commit them. So I'm wonder how a society of all women would resolve conflicts that historically resulted in war when men were involved. Would there be negotiation, or some sort of new conflict that doesn't involve violence?
I mean, literally jabbing a finger into me, repeatedly, and rather painfully is rather physical.
Feels to me like men have to be a fair ways more polite with others.>Most wars have been fought by men
Primarily due to physical characteristics and biological inclinations influencing social standards, which are unlikely to be present in your society, despite the potential necessity of war.
Women were not set on the front lines, because women were for much of history, protected. Because women are generally quite a bit weaker. Because women don't have the same physical traits as men do, don't have the size, the balance, the endurance.
Truthfully, I don't really accept that women are just flat out "not as violent as men". It's just, I'd say, they don't tend to be as, for lack of a better word, damaging as men.
Tends to not be a flat decision, but, rather, a more emotional push for striking or lashing out. Whereas, when a man wants to hurt someone, it seems to be a conscious flick that, while reasoned through emotion, sets a flat goal in their mind that they follow through
File: 1567136903095.jpg (60.37 KB, 500x372, 125:93, that explains everything.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Yeah, let's try and preserve the spirit of anonymity on this board. Ideas should stand on their own, not on who is giving them.
Crime is a moving target since what's criminal is variable, so I have no reason to think that would change.>violence?
I...do think there'd be less violence. Not probably fewer wars, but less of the individual young male type of violence.>less inequality
No.>morally obligated to commit this act
Only if ordered by authorities.
>>1463>Only if ordered by authorities.
Someone being an authority figure does not necessarily mean that they are the sole deciders of what is and isn't "moral". Morality can and does differ from person to person.
For example, it is possible for someone to receive an order from a superior authority to kill someone, even if that person personally believes it is morally wrong to kill.
Many organizations have rules and protocols in place to deal with such events. Just because someone has authority over you, or can coerce you into doing something, doesn't mean that their desires are automatically moral. That is part of why I asked that question in the first place. To get personal opinions on where they would stand on the issue morally.
As for the rest of your question, what if we limited "crime" to just the things mentioned in >>1405
. Would this hypothetical society have less rape, theft, assault, arson and gang activity?
How could a society have less violence but not less war? War is predicated on violence. A society with less violence and less violent people would therefor have less war, would it not?
Also, do you have any reasons to believe there would not be a decrease in inequality? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious as to your reasoning.
Wars happen because somebody has something another side wants, but the other site is unwilling to give it.
Wars are not about violence, they're about resources.
That might be an exclusively male way of thinking, though. Answering "They have something. I want it, and they won't give it." with "I will commit an act of violence to take it from them/coerce them into giving it to me." Is the reason why theft and assault exist. And on a much larger scale, it's why wars are waged.
I am sure women have the "They have, I want" thoughts and desires men do. It's my personal opinion that they probably have them at similar rates that men do. But women do not commit acts of violence as a result of those thoughts and desires at nearly the same numbers. They just don't, that's what those statistics show.
If women have the same thoughts and desires for things they lack that others might posses as we men do, but do not use violence to obtain them nearly as often, then a society of all women would not have the same amount of war. Which is why I'm curious how a society of all women WOULD resolve things normally solved with war.
like I said, I'm a bit skeptical of whether or not they actually are that much less violent than men inherently. I think a large chunk of it might just simply be due to the fact that they are going to be quite a bit weaker than half the population that they would be targeting.
It is definitely easier for a man to engage in violence than a woman, purely in terms of raw capability.
File: 1567217588733.png (60.15 KB, 579x547, 579:547, gender-violence-table3.png) ImgOps Google
Women and men differ in their preferred methods of committing homicide. "In fact, women are responsible for nearly 40% of homicides involving poison, drugs, drowning, and asphyxiation. Drowning and asphyxiations by women are especially prevalent in homicides of children. Two-thirds of infanticides (victims less than age 5) are committed by women (primarily mothers or step-mothers), and 80% of homicides of victims less than the age of 1 year implicate a female perpetrator." 
So I'd guess that wars in an all-female world would involve less use of kinetic weapons and more poisoning of water supplies and things like that.>If women have the same thoughts and desires for things they lack that others might posses as we men do, but do not use violence to obtain them nearly as often, then a society of all women would not have the same amount of war.
I disagree. My guess is that the type of people who run for and get elected to the highest levels of leadership of a country or large corporation are much more likely than the average person to use whatever means necessary to obtain what they want. So even if women, on average, are less personally violent than men, you'll still end up with women in charge who are willing to wage war.
 Fox, James Alan, and Emma E. Fridel. "Gender differences in patterns and trends in US homicide, 1976–2015." Violence and Gender
I would agree with Lackadaisical Porpoise. In a vastly larger number of cases, men are stronger than women physically. When some man look at a woman and say they want something, they are able
to also think "and I could take it from them by force". And that's something that doesn't usually work in reverse. If a woman wants something that a man has, only a select few are going to feel empowered enough to even attempt it, much less succeed. But if suddenly everyone is women and there's an even playing field, then the part of coveting another's property that includes "could I be successful" shifts from no to yes, and society's rate of violence isn't necessarily this paradise that the OP suggests.
I guess I'm not suppose to say what I don't believe, so OK.>Morality can and does differ from person to person.
Authorities have to know what is morally appropriate for subjects. That is why they are authorities.>superior authority to kill someone, even if that person personally believes it is morally wrong to kill.
The authority could say the person is delusional. That means their beliefs are invalid.
Guess I can't figure how there could be authorities without some moral aspect.>Many organizations have rules and protocols in place to deal with such events.
Well, high authorities can enforce on lower authorities. I think that is respectful.>To get personal opinions on where they would stand on the issue morally.
Oh, like if I were an authority. Oh, well, that's different. I'm never an authority for large groups of people. OK. If women alone would create a society with less people getting hurt, I think I'd have to go for it. I can't say I want more people to get hurt.>Would this hypothetical society have less rape, theft, assault, arson and gang activity?
I think so. The alternative hypothesis is that these crimes are simply a function of power. If a man weren't to use violence, the duty, as it were, would fall on the woman, who would do the same. Hmm...a quick google search found a site that claims violence and men and women's prisons are about equal. If that holds in other cases, it may be that violence is a function of power, and so won't be expected to change.>War is predicated on violence.
War is state-approved violence. I was contrasting that with criminal violence.>A society with less violence and less violent people would therefor have less war, would it not?
I'm not really sure. Perhaps I just said no change for ignorance. I've come to no theory for predicting war.>Also, do you have any reasons to believe there would not be a decrease in inequality?
It was a default, so no positive reasons. I can think of male and female dominated industries, but there are all kinds of third variables. The greater wealth tends to go to male dominated, so you'd expect greater inequality for that reason alone, a wide range through which to be unequal.
I'm sorry I can't answer very well. The natural differences in gender, as opposed to cultural, is a open area of study. Children get gendered nurture from early, so it's hard to separate. If you deleted males, I think most of the roles of males would be filled by the range of females, but I do suspect some nature to gender and the mean on something like gun-violence would shift down a bit.
I rarely use this site and I'm almost certainly not going to read this whole thread but here is what I think:
This line of thought is kind of dangerous imo and while it tends to come from people with better intentions than those who make the same arguments about race using similar statistics regarding race, it is still dangerous none the less.
Perhaps one of the biggest issues is the assumption that there is something within men that makes them violent rather than a long history that shaped societal expectations of men, normalized war, and normalized violence as a means of solutions and generally the circumstances that have made and continue to make men the way they are in comparison to women. There is no completely solid evidence that men are just the way they are because they are built that way and it likely isn't true. As such, if women were put into the the same shoes with the same historical conditions that led them to where they are today, nothing would likely change except that it's women instead.
Removing the world of men, by force or through means that become normalized through science is the complete wrong approach because even if women were giving birth through another woman you'd have to actively ensure that it's not a male that is being born, you'd have to have enough disdain for males to specifically disallow that. So instead of doing things in a way that prevents men from existing, why not simply work things out over time and change how men are made to function? It will likely take a lot of time but it's far more worth it than just expecting women to be better by default which they wouldn't be I'm sure, at the very least they wouldn't be through any merit of being a woman.>And of course, wars and armed conflicts are almost always fought by males in vastly overwhelming numbers compared to women combatants.
Because historically in the vast majority of countries participating in wars, women were disallowed from fighting. This is yet another way that men have been trained to be a certain way and it has been going on for a long period of time. It's again, not due to anything inherent in men but it's just the way things ended up, similar to how the world may look a lot different now and think really differently if religions like christianity didn't become so widespread. In fact, a lot of terrible things happen and are only considered "okay" (not saying it's okay at all) in war including everything you mentioned and more. So for the most part only men have to experience that.
I'm not an expert on history so that's about as far as I can go with this, but if you take anything from this let it simply be that men aren't the problem, what made men's tendencies over a long period of time is.
File: 1567264918773.gif (12.87 KB, 440x310, 44:31, 20021119_2.gif) ImgOps Google
>>1470>We don't know if the tactics used to convince populations of men to wage war would work on women
I disagree. Throughout recent history, there hasn't been a big gap in men's approval of wars vs women's approval. Women approve of war only slightly less than men. So there would probably be only slightly fewer wars.
File: 1567284494290.gif (4.18 KB, 416x312, 4:3, male-vs-female-math-intell….gif) ImgOps Google
An article further expanding on differences in distribution of male and female math ability: http://www.LaGriffeDuLion.f2s.com/math.htm
The means are about the same, but the standard deviation for the male distribution is larger. At +2σ and especially +3σ, there are many more males than females.
File: 1567286100662.jpg (104.86 KB, 960x960, 1:1, 1517523121031.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1477>I'm really not sure why you're trying to push a "women are not as smart as men" agenda here.
I'm not. Did you even skim the article that I linked? (You posted less than 2 minutes after my post, which doesn't seem like enough time to digest that article.) My position is that, on average, men are about as intelligent as women, but the male distribution has greater variance, so if you look at the tail ends (e.g., top 1%, top 0.1%) you'll find more men than women. And I already explained the relevance (to this thread) of that in >>1422
File: 1567319366306.png (526.26 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, note.png) ImgOps Google
If women could reproduce on their own and make a happier society without men, but the only way to create such a society would be to immediately, magically, and painlessly kill all men by pressing a Big Green Button, would you be morally and/or ethically obligated to press the button, thus creating a better world to live in?
Regardless of your answer, do you think that women alone would make a better society than what we have now/what men alone would create?
tldr1; Is it ever OK to kill someone if it makes everyone else happier? If so, are you morally/ethically obligated to do it?
tldr2; Who would make the best society, assuming asexual reproduction is possible in the first and last cases: men, men + women/women + men, or women?
>Is it ever OK to kill someone if it makes everyone else happier?
That kind of mentality makes it rather easy to excuse some pretty horrific behavior. Especially when you start looking towards other potentials. I mean, if it's okay to kill someone for the sake of the majority's happiness, then surely it's okay to exploit that person, since that's typically looked on as lesser.
Next thing you know, you've got a slave caste acting as the underclass for your utopia.
It's why individualistic ethics is generally a bit safer, near as I can tell. Most you get is allowing bad people to do bad things, individually.
>Who would make the best society, assuming asexual reproduction is possible in the first and last cases: men, men + women/women + men, or wome
Would there be much a distinction by that point?
What's the distinction for the 'best' society? Progress? Safety?
Do we assume men and women would be more or less the same as they are now, socially?
I feel like the OP was pretty simple to begin with, but ok. And it was asking if WOMEN would be morally obligated to push the button. I wouldn't expect a man to do it and end his own existence for the greater good. That's a different debate. >>1478
It still seems very strange that someone is trying to statistically prove that there are less women geniuses than men. I'm always wary of any statistics that try to prove one group is superior to another, because there's a chance conclusion is being biased and/or outright dishonest. Like when racists try to use statistics.>>1475
But isn't it easier to support wars you wouldn't have to fight in? Maybe women's support of wars would decrease if they were the combatants.
>>1473>Authorities have to know what is morally appropriate for subjects. That is why they are authorities.
Um, not always? Some people become authorities through dishonest means because they desire power. They aren't morally superior to anyone else just because of that position.>The authority could say the person is delusional. That means their beliefs are invalid.
They can, and do. But it doesn't mean everyone will agree with them. That kind of thing only happens in a dictatorship.
If this is who I think it is, I think your views on authority and authority figures needs some work. >>1474>Because historically in the vast majority of countries participating in wars, women were disallowed from fighting.
I'm not sure women would want to wage war even if they were allowed to. War is bad, mmkay. People come back from wars broken. Physically, mentally, emotionally broken. Women have seen this happen throughout history. If we suddenly said "Ok, Women can do go and do that and come back just as broken." I'm not sure they would want to.
>>1481>It still seems very strange that someone is trying to statistically prove that there are less women geniuses than men.
Why? It is directly relevant to the thread. One obvious way to address the negative statistics about men and crime is to present offsetting positive statistics about men. So really an argument of that form should be expected.>I'm always wary of any statistics that try to prove one group is superior to another, because there's a chance conclusion is being biased and/or outright dishonest.
Presumably you are wary of the statistics that you provided in >>1405
then? How did your overcome that wariness?
>>1483>How do we know these variations at the extremes aren't the result of selective pressures that have effected men somewhat more than they have women over thousands of years? If all men were removed, wouldn't these pressures simply end up being borne by women, with the result being that the number of female geniuses would increase accordingly?
I guess that depends on the details of the new method of sexual reproduction mentioned in the OP. Mammalian males invest a lot less metabolically (in their offspring) than females, so a very successful male spreads his genes to many more offspring than a very successsful female. Thus the greater fecundity of the successful males outweighs the lack of success of the bottom-tier males. If the women in the OP scenario are able to invest different amounts in their offspring, variability might increase, provided that such variability conveys a reproductive advantage. (Come to think of it, I guess the new "women" in the OP aren't truly female but rather more like hermaphrodites.)
However, a point made in >>1422
was that we have little time to develop carbon sequestration technologies before very bad things happen, so we wouldn't be able to wait long enough for evolution to catch up in increasing the variability of intelligence.
it's not about terms of "superior" or "inferior", because it doesn't apply universally. Not all men are criminal. But the people who are criminal are men. It's like saying all chickens are birds, but not all birds are chickens.
Criminal men existing does not mean all men are criminal. But if you remove men for a society, you remove crime because the people who commit the majority of crime are men.
>>1481>I'm always wary of any statistics that try to prove one group is superior to another, because there's a chance conclusion is being biased and/or outright dishonest. Like when racists try to use statistics.
The problem is more correlation does not equate causation.
But, more to the point... You've
Are you seriously going to say it's "strange" when someone else does it, but it's perfectly fine when you do it?
Considering the OP literally talks about genociding all men specifically because of the presumption that a society of all women would be superior, I am incredibly skeptical of that claim.
It seems to me your entire argument was built around the idea that men are inferior to women.
Otherwise the question would've never come up.
File: 1567366160970.png (125.06 KB, 400x400, 1:1, mtr_1567133369572.png) ImgOps Google
But your explanation makes no sense!
For that last bit, I'd point you to >>1493>>1490>it's not about terms of "superior" or "inferior", because it doesn't apply universally
Neither does a statistical curve. But, besides that, you are using this supposed inclination that doesn't apply universally to justify the extermination of all
Saying "Not all black people are criminals" while saying a society without them would be better is still going to be, 'least to me, suggesting a 'inferiority'.
Whether or not it is universal strikes me as completely irrelevant. Especially when you go on to literally say >"if you remove men for a society, you remove crime because the people who commit the majority of crime are men."
>>1496>If the difference is so small, why are you factoring it in?
I didn't say that the difference is small. The difference in ability is rather large at the top 0.1% and 0.01%.>>1496> If female geniuses will still be born, just at a supposedly lesser rate, then technological advances will still happen. Just at a (supposedly small) slower rate.
But perhaps too slow to avert global catastrophe.
Have to agree.>>1496
Because exceptional people do exceptional things.
You're probably right that growth'd still happen, just at a slower rate. The question is if that's "better" with the trade of no crime.
If the argument's suffering or death, then is it better to have no crime, or invent a cure to some major disease, a new manufacturing technique, or a new method of communicating, some twenty odd years earlier?
The potential human suffering from a lack of communication, lack of economic growth, or lack of cures to disease in that timeframe could be quite extensive, after all. So if the argument is "get rid of men because X suffering happens when they exist", then surely any suffering caused due to a lack of development in the speed of that top percentage of exceptional individuals ought be counted against that suffering supposedly saved.
That's not really the same. Black people are not inherenly more criminal, and that's a racist notion to even suggest. The differences in crime statistics are due to other factors, not genetic traits that lend themselves to skin color.
But with these other statistics, the differences are genetic. It's because of men's differing levels of aggression and physical strength. >>1498>But perhaps too slow to avert global catastrophe.
But that's speculating on what-ifs and maybes we can't be sure of. I mean, for all we know the crime-less women's society would have more time and effort dedicated to solving global catastrophes than the ones with males, which dedicate more time and manpower towards wars instead.
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.