Antidepressants (SSRI) Make Females Unattractive, Provoke Male Aggression

Discussion in 'Scientific Studies' started by haidut, Jan 3, 2019.

  1. Waremu

    Waremu Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2014
    Messages:
    532
    Gender:
    Male

    You're now making excuses for putting words in my mouth.

    The main point wasn't about aggression. It was about responsability. A rape victim who walks into town and gets raped had no understanding of the situation he or she was in and what would happen to him or her. The victim is not responsible for being raped, or the situation he or she is in. That is once again not equal to someone who willingly chooses to continue to be in an abusive relationship and enables abusive behavior. That person is in a codependency and a codependency takes two to happen, so she is also responsible. The abuser is and should always be responsible for being abusive, but the person who chooses to be in that abusive relationship is responsible for the outcome because codependent relationships take two to work, just as it takes buyers and drug sellers to make the transaction occur and both parties are responsible for the drug transaction.

    Also, aggression can be used for many different things. It is a very board spectrum and to compare the aggression used for rape to that of competition in football games, for example, is just absurd. Therefore, no, it does not go along the same lines just because aggression is used.

    Then by your same argument, a person is not responsible for running towards a wild bear when they know the bear will rip them to pieces. The victim chose to engage with the bear knowing the consequences just as the so-called victim chose to stay in the abusive relationship. They the bear responsability for being there and what happens to them through enablement, etc.

    Your argument thus falls apart.


    Well, that is another story, but actually, in a majority of relationships where the woman is abused, she also is abusive back. But that would just further prove my argument.

    Thats not always the same thing. If the woman has never raped the guy and the relationship was okay, then the guy did not know. However, if he stays in a relationship after being raped and continues to be raped, then he bears a level of responsability for choosing to be there and what happens to him because he is then enabling the abusive behavior. Two different scenarios.

    Also, in much of the West, women suffer far lessor punishments for the same sexual crimes men commit. This is one very good example of how many women today want to be treated as men and the same benefits men have via equality, yet they don't really want the laws to be applied equally to them like with men. And so, men suffer from that true inequality because women collectively (along with the state) and many men do not want to hold women accountable or make them have responsability.

    Okay, now you are just grasping at straws here. Half the time someone says they were 'brainwashed', it likely is just an excuse to absolve responsability for their bad choices of being in the relationship and enabling the bad behavior. In the cases that someone is truly preyed upon and groomed and truly brainwashed, then that is not the same thing because if you are truly groomed and brainwashed by someone and that person was a great person up until that point, then the victim had no real red flags that were obvious to them that the person was being abusive, etc. The victim doesn't have prior knowledge at least to a large degree, so it isn't like she is choosing to stay in a relationship and is not brainwashed after the fact that the person has been abusive time and time again.

    The two scenarios are miles apart for those reasons and for someone to be very skilled at truly brainwashing someone is a very hard job, so such cases of finding someone who is truly brainwashed are not as common. When most people claim they're brainwashed, it's too subjective as well.


    But they are black and white, for the most part. I just made clear distinctions and lines in the definitions for you, thus my argument was entirely coherent. You may not like my argument but it is consistent. Yours is not. I explained to you how you can know which cases would be black and which would be white and that is due to the responsability according to things like prior knowledge. If you have prior knowledge that a wild bear is in the woods and you understand bears are dangerous, there is nothing black and white about it. Clearly, you are responsible for engaging with the bear when you know it is very dangerous and will hurt you. You bear responsability just a much as the bear. However, if someone is raped by a stranger, the victim could have never known that as going to happen to avoid it. And there is never a right excuse for a man who knows it is wrong to rape her, so he is responsible for the act of rape. However, if a woman goes to a party, and she gets drunk, and passes out on a sofa with five guys and is raped, then she does bare some responsibility for the situation she put herself in. She isn't responsible for being raped because there is never a good excuse for why those five men had to rape her, but she does bare some responsability for putting herself in the situation that led to the rape due to poor decisions that any intelligent person should know is wrong (that passing out drunk with drunk strangers at night in someone's home puts you at higher risk of being raped). Likewise, someone who chooses to be in an abusive relationship and is enabling the abuser is responsible for the outcome of that relationship which ends in abuse, even though the abuser is responsible for his or her abuse to the victim.

    But again, as I said earlier, statistically, MOST abusive relationships are reciprocal. So that would further validate my argument on that basis alone due to that overlap.

    But even in cases where the aggressor is abusive and not the victim, if she continues to be there then she is responsible for the outcome because she has been abused before and knows it is an abusive relationship. She is choosing to be there. No one physically forcing her to be in the relationship. Thus, she is enabling the abusive relationship to take place. You learn about enablement in AA class as an recovering drug addict or alcoholic. They also teach and are aware of the fact that abusive relationships become enablement and codependency.

    You have no argument to what I say because you have holes in your argument. And because you cannot develop a coherent argument you use shaming language like "victim blaming.'

    Parents shame their kids for making bad choices. Why? Because parents know deep down, inherently, that even if something bad happens, their kids have the responsability to not do things they were taught not to do by the parents. For example, if they see their little boy talking to a stranger in front of the house (and the area is a dangerous area with kidnappings), the parent will shame the young boy within reason. They will say "didn't I tell you not to talk to strangers even if they offer you candy when I am not present?" Or if the kid is abducted because the person coaxed the kid with candy and is later found because the kid escaped without being hurt, when the parent gets the kid back, either immediately or at some point they will out of love shame the kid and say "I told you not to talk to strangers and go off with them if they offer you candy!"

    Is the parent technically victim shaming according to your definition? YES. Good parents victim shame! It's wonderful! Thats what responsible parents do!

    Lastly, not all victims are created equally. If you're a victim who runs up to a wild bear and almost gets killed after I warned you not to do it, and then I shame you for your silly decision, am I victim blaming or shaming you the victim for your bad decision? YES. Why? Because it was a stupid decision and you bear responsability for the outcome as well. And logic suggests they are to blame for their bad decision equally. So yes. Sometimes victims are to blame equally or to a good degree as well for the outcome. Being a victim doesn't in of itself necessarily absolve you of any responsibility. Yet you make 'victim' to be your sacred cow. It takes two people or more to form an outcome like an absuive relationship.

    Don't like it? Too bad. Logic and truth doesn't care about your feelings.
     
  2. Jackrabbit

    Jackrabbit Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2018
    Messages:
    172
    Lol I think your rhetoric is largely that of a victim blamer, so I think it’s funny that you would try to say I’m shaming you. I think it’s shameful that you’re such a classic victim blamer so if my words sound shaming I think that it’s pretty justified! You have a classic authoritarian male persona and I would assume that you’re from a country where misogyny and the patriarchy are dominant, and victim blaming is done as a whole society. At least in this country people have the right to defend themselves with legal teams to at least shame the perpetrator of abuse or rape. You act like it’s so absurd for me to bring up rape, yet you bring up an analogy of a bear in the woods. I’m confused, are you comparing men to bears?
    Of course it’s true, men who commit violence against others are animals and/or monsters, but you make it sound as if it’s the victim’s fault if he/she gives another human being the benefit of the doubt and assumes he’s not the equivalent of a bear. So perhaps your underlying argument is that women should live their lives in perpetual fear of all men because literally all men are capable of being murderers of women due to their superior physical strength. I would never give a bear the benefit of the doubt but considering I’m a married woman, it’s probably good that I at least suspend my mistrust of males at least in his presence!
    Perhaps you should list all of the situations in which a woman should be held accountable for her rape/abuse. Does that list include when the man threatens to murder her children if she should leave? Does that make her “codependent”?
     
  3. Waremu

    Waremu Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2014
    Messages:
    532
    Gender:
    Male
    Emotionally driven -- "your rhetoric, your rhetoric...can't proive you said you blame victims but muh feelings because your/muh rhetoric"


    But you are shaming me, by definition. You have no argument, so then you must put words in my mouth, then when called out on it, you say, well, it 'feeeeeeels' like. What you perceive or feel does not equate to fact. You do not like the fact that I am right and you cannot prove me wrong on a moral level, so then you resort to saying I said things. Then you can't prove that, so you say 'it feels' like you are, as if the two are the same thing. What you feel doesn't matter to me. Only objective truth matters.


    More emotion. No rationality.


    Okay, so now you come out and show your real colors. You're a radical feminist, judging by the typical feminist conspiracy theory buzzwords like 'patriarchy.' Now it makes sense why you're highly emotional, and not rational. I could say you're displaying toxic femininity and sound like a radical feminist too, but thats below my level of intelligence.

    But, I can name call too. You're a self-hating feminist who pushes your grievance study conspiracy theories because you don't understand how statistics/probabilities work, or biology, and you hate the fact that you get called out for talking out both sides of your mouth about equality yet you truly don't want equality. You, as most radicals, want equality of outcome because you hate natural competition and the biological fact that men and women are not equal. So you must push your radical grievance studies conspiracy theories to make up for these facts you cannot dispute.


    You think it is okay for someone to take no responsability for their bad choices even if it affects others, so you are the authoritarian here.

    I bring up the bear analogy because both analogies have the same principles. You don't seem intelligent enough to understand this simple concept.

    1) There is no such thing as monsters.
    2) We are all animals with animalistic instincts
    3) "You make it sound" is not equal to "you said." Third error in your argument. Just more emotion.

    Giving someone the benefit of the doubt has nothing to do with being responsible or not. You are responsible for your choices you make whether they are moral or immoral. If she gave him the benefit of the doubt then that was her choice, but it doesn't change the fact that she is continuing to stay in an abusive relationship. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt to not abuse after they've abused 2 or 3 or 6 times doesn't promise the abuse won't take place again. And even then, there is naturally a threshold to where you as a person have given enough chances to the person and have to leave. In a large percentage of or the majority of abusive relationships, the women stays afterwards and even continues to go back to the person.

    The abuser is the equivalent of the bear in principle:

    A) If you engage with the hungry bear, it is a strong likelihood you will be hurt or killed

    B) If you engage with an abuser and that person has already abused you in the past, it is a very strong likelihood they will abuse you again in the near future

    The abuse victim is equivalent to the bears victim in principle:

    A) The female victim is choosing to stay in an abusive relationship, knowing the danger

    B) The bears victim is choosing to engage the bear, knowing the danger

    If the victims walked away, it would have been impossible for the abusive relationship and bear attack to happen. Them being there out of their own free will decision therefore suggests they made those choices understanding the consequences and therefore bear responsability for engaging the bear/staying in the abusive relationship.

    These are facts. You do not like facts because of feelings, and cannot argue against this, so you resort to name calling.

    You reject truth and are a child of the lie and push more lies over truth because you are an authoritarian who parades under the guise of virtue or morality to carry out immoral acts. Much like religious fanatics/extremists in my former country where I am from who go on killing sprees and give them virtuous names. If you have free will to choose/make decisions, then you bear responsability for the outcome of the situations or choices you made.

    No. Why on earth would you come to that conclusion?

    Why would anyone need to live in fear just because someone is capable of doing something bad. My dog is big and is capable of turning on me. Doesn't mean he will turn on me. So why would I live in fear over that? I simply live my life and practice caution and don't take on unnecessary risks. I don't walk the streets of a dangerous street at night where I know theft and murders occur regularly. My point is, no, do not live in fear, but be aware of the risks you take and use common sense. But everyone bears responsability when they make bad choices and there are always consequences.

    Why is nuance so hard for you to grasp?


    A woman is not responsible for rape. If a man rapes a woman, he decided to do it and there is never an excuse to do so.

    And if the woman did not make bad choices that led to her being in a bad situation causing her to be raped, then being in that bad situation is not her fault either.

    However, if a woman dates an abusive man who has raped her or someone else in the past, or sexually assaulted her or someone in the past once or more times, and they show abuse towards them, but continue to stay in that relationship regardless and she gets raped, the man is still accountable for raping her. It is his doing entirely for raping her. It is not her fault for being raped because nothing excuses or justifies rape, as there is no logical or moral reason to ever justify doing so. However, that woman bears responsability for putting herself in the bad situation which led to her being raped. Both parties bear accountability --- the man bears accountability for being the rapist, and the woman bears accountability for putting herself in the bad situation that led to the outcome.

     
  4. Hugh Johnson

    Hugh Johnson Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,329
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    King
    Location:
    The Sultanate of Portugal
    Women having shelters and there being women's changing rooms etc is hardly a burden on men.

    I want women protected from predatory men partially because I am not predatory so any woman damaged by them also hurts me.

    The protections given to women cost a fraction of the cost of male predation on women.

    Although I do apologise for the aggressive tone I took. It was motivated by what I perceive to be pathological anger towards women. Things need not be perfectly equal between sexes because sometime small concessions can make things better for both sexes.
     
  5. Jackrabbit

    Jackrabbit Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2018
    Messages:
    172
    Your self-righteous dictate that women who are being abused are choosing that because they keep going back is really narrow-minded. It shows that you really don’t know much about psychology. Men have always used physical strength and, more recently, financial control to dominate women, and once a woman has been dominated that way it’s very difficult to disentangle from the relationship. There are many manipulative tactics the male can use to maintain power and control and it’s not just as simple as physical force, because if that were true the woman could escape as soon as the male was no longer physically present. Oftentimes the male will wait until the woman has children with him, or once her financial assets are completely tied in with his and she has nothing and nowhere to turn. I’m really sorry that you don’t understand these concepts and you actually think a woman would logically choose that life for herself if she wasn’t being influenced by many factors that people such as yourself can’t seem to see.
    You seem like the kind of person who would doubt or question your own sister or daughter if she were to come to you out of desperation to get help out of an abusive situation. Would you assume she played a role in the abuse? Would you buy the man’s “nice guy” facade and never believe he would do such a thing? Yes, there are women out there who lie about abuse or rape or whatever and those women should be held accountable for lying about something like that. But the fact is if a woman is a decent person and she admits that she’s been abused or raped, she probably had a more difficult time actually telling people that than you could ever know. We are the ones who oftentimes get stigmatized for crimes committed against us, so why would we be eager to tell the world about our tribulations? If we get raped, we are whores because now we’re “impure” or because we dared to wear a revealing skirt to a bar so we asked for it. Women are blamed, it is the knee jerk reaction society has programmed us to have.
     
  6. Waremu

    Waremu Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2014
    Messages:
    532
    Gender:
    Male
    But you seem to make the assumption that all the women at shelters and being helped by government are there because they were all victims, but that is not true. Women who are caught cheating by their husbands, or doing drugs, or who are also abusive and are forced to leave their boyfriends home also end up using those services. Them using those services is not in of itself proof that they are victims and not in any wrong. Some of them are and some are not. I knew a woman who was taking drugs while she was pregnant and her boyfriend took custody of the kid because she was caught lying about it and ended up leaving his home and because she had no where else to go, she claimed he hit her when he never did so she could go to a womans shelter and get on social programs. I have a sister who falsely accused a man of rape and she spent time at a homeless shelter because she said she didn't want to be a mother anymore and she left her son. If I know of two examples in my life of this, clearly they cannot be the only ones.

    You say the valid points I make somehow sound like anger towards women, yet I could easily say it is as if you assume that all women are angels that do no wrong and that all of them who end up in such bad situations are there because they were good people and all the men were evil demons. Now if you are not aware of this bias towards women, then of course any legitimate criticism of any woman will likely sound like 'anger'.

    I think men have this natural tendency to be gynocentric and overlook the bad things women do because of our protector and provider biological instinct. We see this all over the court system where men are sentenced far more harshly for the same violent crimes women commit. I think we need to be aware of such bias as well and not treat women as if they all are angels and victims because thats just not the case. There are plenty of good women who are in bad situations, but there are also plenty of bad women who are in bad situations because they were bad people just like there are bad men.
     
  7. Waremu

    Waremu Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2014
    Messages:
    532
    Gender:
    Male
    You obviously cannot grasp or try to understand the logical points I make and are just enraged with emotion. Who really is the one with the narrow mind here?

    When someone holds people accountable equally when it is equally right to do so, you call it "self-righteous" and "judging."

    Well, to judge is to discern, and discernments/judgments are necessary to make sense of the world around you. It seems those who are morally deficient are the most vocal about "not judging" these days. Maybe too many demons they have to confront in their own lives -- and that is fine, since we all have demons, but just be honest about it.



    No, I never denied that men have always used physical strength to control women. But men also had to provide and care for women and used their strength to do so too. Clearly your understanding of psychology is one sided. And both sexes tend to use and abuse their natural strengths to get what they want. (This is how humans and animals evolved so that the human species could go on and reproduce. Yes, most of our history is ugly.) Women have also always used sexuality to control men for financial gain as well. And with regards to 'financial control', that is very subjective. There are many articles where women will say that a man didn't give her more money to go to the mall on Saturday and therefore this is financial abuse. Many many articles like this written by feminists.

    You seem to be the one who doesn't understand psychology here.

    Okay, now you're making it sound like women are not accountable for their choices. The gynocentrism is on full display here. This is getting pretty sad. Women also can be highly manipulative as well. Does that mean men are not responsible for the partners they seek out and stay with? Of course! You make it sound as if women are these helpless robots that can't decide for themselves and are easily subject to manipulation so much so that they can't do any wrong and if they do make bad choices, they have no agency. It's absurd, really. In fact, you are beginning to sound like the sexist here. You make it sound like women are too weak and morally deficient to make their own decisions.

    But if you truly believe in equality, you wont think one sex has no agency. You will think they are capable of doing so which is why they are equally responsible to men.

    Either women have agency or they don't. Everyone is subject to manipulation in relationships and that doesn't negate your level of responsability you have to use discretion and make choices that benefit you, according to your own welfare.

    If a woman is with a man that she is financially dependent on, then whose fault is it that she is financially dependent on him. Whose fault was it marrying or getting with the man for financial freedom? Because clearly, if a woman gets with a guy and she is poor to the point of depending on him entirely financially, then it's highly suspicious and there is a likelihood she used manipulation to get with him for his money as well. But yet according to you it seems it is the only the man who is doing the manipulation here. No, it often is both sexes doing the manipulation in the relationship when there is such, and they use their own strengths to get what they want. I am simply looking at things equally and from both sides, not one side as you seem to be doing.


    I knew a guy who uses a woman who has a kid because he knows her options are tied because she cannot just bring home any guy because she wants to set good examples for the kid. So she is with him and he knows she is with him because she trusts him with the kid and her. But he has no job and is not financially set and is only using her because she has money. He is dependent on for money. Does she owe it to him to give him money so that he is dependent on her? No. He should have had his stuff together financially before he met her and shouldn't be smooching off her. When men do it I call it out and society does, but yet when women do this it is somehow fine because they're women. More of the gynocentric bias it seems, clearly.


    I have had many times. And, as I stated, one of those times my sister falsely accused the man of rape and because I was stupid and not wise as I am now, I was very close to taking the law into my own hands. She almost had me do something very bad to him, an innocent man, because I believed her so much.

    I think it was after that that I started to see that women, even my own blood, are capable of really wicked acts and that I can't just believe everything women tell me either. And it served me well later down the road as well. Unfortunately, many men are not experienced with human natures of both sexes and so they don't make rational decisions when they're younger.

    But back to the point: you incorrectly assumed I wouldn't believe my a sibling who came to me because that clearly isn't the case. Listen and believe with no evidence could have landed me in a very bad situation because of that.

    If I had a daughter or sister come to me, I would believe them and listen and help them. But I would also tell them to get out of the bad relationship they are in and help them to do so because I care about her and do not want to see her get hurt and make bad choices.

    I had a second sister. She was raped for real, by gang members. I listened and believed her. But I found out she went to a coke party and got drunk and this is how they took advantage of her. Just like a parent would and should do, I told her that I hope she had learned from that, not to go to such bad places. I warned her not to go to the party and she promised me she would not and went behind my back. It was a bad choice she mad that had bad consequences. It's tough love to tell her she made a bad choice in going because I want her to learn from it that it never happens again. The men who raped her I don't see as humans, and they better hope I never find them. But she also acknowledges that it was a dumb choices she made. I don't bash her over the head over it, but she acknowledged that she should have listened to me and that she should have never gone to the party. In that situation I helped her. Acknowledging someone bears responsability if they made a bad choice doesn't mean you don't help them or care about them. It means you want them to learn so that it doesn't happen again because the world is not a good place.




    Oh really? Who is to say that the woman accusing the man is a decent person? My sister was a decent person. Never thought in a million years she would falsely accuse someone, but she did. And if the woman is a stranger, it is even harder to judge or assume she is a 'decent person.' That is highly subjective as well.

    This is why we have a system of laws in the US, where you are innocent until proven guilty. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and when you make a claim, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused (can't proof a negative anyway). There are many rapes that happen, but there are also many false rape allegations that happen and until someone is found guilty by evidence of a crime, then they are not guilty. Of course a lot of radical feminists today are trying to turn that law upside down, but that is how it has and should work.

    If a woman I do not know claims to be raped, then I do not just listen and believe, as with anyone claiming an accusation. I will ask for the claims being made by the accuser and the accused, and see if there are holes and which side has the holes. I will then ask for any evidence and be as objective as I can be. And no, if you were truly raped, even if you put yourself in the bad situation, then it doesn't matter how revealing the clothes were that you had on or how you dressed, there is never an excuse for a man to put his hands on someone else unless it is self-defense, and that includes a woman. Even if a woman put herself in a bad situation that led to her rape, that never excuses the man or person from committing the crime and only the rapist is to blame for what he or she did.

    Most women can't anticipate that some guy will rape them, so it is very different than a highly abusive relationship where the woman or man is very aware of the abuse that goes on and continues to stay in that codependency and not come out of it, similar to a drug addict.
     
  8. Jackrabbit

    Jackrabbit Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2018
    Messages:
    172
    You know I think for the most part our opinions are not that far apart. Obviously there are people who lie and there are people who do bad things and because we can’t trust that anyone will tell the truth we can’t just take everyone’s word for things. It’s really awful that people falsely accuse because it means people who are actually telling the truth get looked at sideways. And you’re correct in that there’s no way to tell for sure if someone is credible because sometimes liars seem honest.
    I have known quite a few addicts and the fact that they have an “illness” as they call it now does not mean that what they do when high or under the influence is excusable. It’s an illness yet many people with the illness want to remain unhealthy because it involves getting a feeling that makes them feel temporarily better. This I think is also true for the unhealthy relationship, because although the man might be abusive, there can be this addictive element to it. The way the man makes a woman feel like she’s nothing or something depending on how he treats her. She can get to the point where his approval is the only thing that she wants because it makes her feel like she has some value. There is some part of this type of woman that feels completely inadequate and thrives on this unhealthy dynamic of approval/disapproval, even if approval in this case only means that he’ll use her like a sex toy. She feels so worthless that even getting this godlike figure (in her eyes) to give her the time of day can be addicting like a drug. So the question remains, is this the addicts fault if she (or he) is helpless against the pull of this kind of sick desperation?
    It’s hard to say. I think with the right kind of therapy and physiological support a person can overcome these challenges but what if she doesn’t believe she can change or doesn’t have the necessary support? Is this a crime? I think if you choose the unhealthy way when you have the option to leave then it is your fault to an extent. Does getting help guarantee you’re never going to relapse? Of course not.
    It’s understandable why some people give up on themselves, but it’s sad when children are involved and have to live thrpugh the nightmare with the parent. I believe as adults we have the right to decide whether we want to help a person like this if they continue to relapse into unhealthy patterns. Indeed, continuing to enable someone who has unhealthy patterns is part of the addictive cycle and pretty much prevents a person from changing. So what is the right kind of help? I don’t think punishment per se works because this person clearly hates him or herself so much that punishing them only adds fuel to the fire. But perhaps drawing clear boundaries and not allowing the person to basically use you in the midst of her personal struggles. Saying I’m willing to help you if you really want help, but don’t just keep dragging me into your illness because you know I care and you know I’ll get upset and get caught up in your drama with you. Giving a consequence if they don’t get help.
    But if everyone had a brother like you perhaps there would be fewer people who are in abusive or codependent situations. Not everyone has that, and I think it’s probably one of the most difficult things to do to escape a situation like that alone. It’s not necessarily impossible but I think you underestimate how many people are being held hostage by their spouses. Yeah, it reveals a weakness by the person who got into that situation to begin with sometimes, but sometimes it’s just crappy luck. Some very strong women have been fooled by men, and although it probably takes a more skilled manipulator, it happens and it can result in the woman being killed or having everything she cares about destroyed before she even figures out what is going on.
    I would like to apologize for making the assumptions I made about you. Thanks for sharing your story. I hope that you don’t ever minimize the pain that going through those situations with your sisters caused you, you were innocent and didn’t deserve either of those situations to happen to you.
     
  9. opethfeldt

    opethfeldt Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    441
    Gender:
    Male
    I've seen more than one pretty girl be ruined by these drugs. When are they going to be taken off the market? They're responsible for ruining the potential of so many people. That's not even mentioning the suicides, mass shootings and other atrocities connected to their use.
     
  10. Hugh Johnson

    Hugh Johnson Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,329
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    King
    Location:
    The Sultanate of Portugal
    Who cares? The standard of proof required to provide support and protection for people does not need to be that high. I am not calling for state violence on men based on the simple word of a woman. I don't consider women perfect angels, you are projecting some crap on me. I do consider women potentially vulnerable in some situations.
     
  11. Waremu

    Waremu Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2014
    Messages:
    532
    Gender:
    Male
    Who cares? Well, you are making the moral argument that they are more vulnerable, but that would mean someone else will have to be responsible for them, in the end, because they cannot be responsible for themselves. I care because it goes back to my main point, that you cannot have equality if you bring one group up by pushing another down and that is precisely what we see, for example, with how many laws favor women over men to a large degree. Either laws have to favor all IF you assume 'equality', or not. The problem is, the state does and always will misallocate the resources that it takes, so the mere fact that they don't require much if any evidence for leaving an abusive relationship in of itself is a good example as to how open the system is for abuse. And this has been going on for DECADES. Millions of dollars wasted on this one thing alone because the system has been abused. Where do you think that money comes from? Men. In principle, it IS the violence of the state. No different than the tax dollars they use from men (men are the only net tax payers, BTW) to pay interest on debt so they can be enabled to borrow more to bomb countries.

    And the excuse that women are more vulnerable simply isn't good enough because 1) that is highly subjective and 2) doesn't negate the fact that under the name of equality the powers that be are creating inequality by doing so --- they don't have shelters for male suicide or abuse victims (at least no where to the degree). After all, they're disposable tax cattle for the state so it can keep pushing violence, right?

    I didn't say you do consider women angels, I said it is almost as if you do --- the point being, in the argument you make, like correlation and effect, that women who go to shelters are victims by the mere fact that they are at those shelters. I have seen the system abused to a very high degree and much of the tax dollars the state takes (by force) to spend on such things are wasted and also abused to a high degree by people who are not genuine victims. Many are victims, but there are also many who abuse it as well. The same thing happens with the child support system. MASSIVE multi-million dollar scam industry, yet it is ignored by the state and Feds because the states make their money from it. (Yes, that is correct). So, men on account of millions of dollars each year are made to be accountable for this nonsense.

    But again, who is more vulnerable is highly subjective. And if you want to argue objectively on metrics, then the facts would show men are just as if not more vulnerable because the state and other forces have created an inequality in an attempt to artificially enforce equality of outcome. But men commit suicide far more, work the vast majority of dangerous jobs that result in worker deaths, receive harsher punishments for the same crimes, on average, and will be the first and for the most part the only ones who are sent off to be disposable when wartime comes (they also have to sign up for the draft). In fact, if men quit working all the dangerous life threatening jobs tomorrow society would freeze from moving forward overnight and millions would die. Literally.
     
  12. Waremu

    Waremu Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2014
    Messages:
    532
    Gender:
    Male
    When we make the choice to do something, we acknowledge we are taking on risk, are we not?

    You mention the addict who is addicted to and hurt by the person within the relationship. Okay. They made the choice to engage in that relationship did they not? Yes. Okay. They also made the choice to engage in the relationship knowing that there was risk, as any conscious adult would. They knew that the relationship not being successful was not only possible, but statistically more likely to not succeed. (Most people know when they go on a date it is more likely to not work out) They are well aware of the fact that the risk involved is loss of time, money, and heart break, correct?

    The analogy of economics is so important because it is naturally constructed around human nature and how we value risk and things that are either good or bad in the market place.

    Okay, well, if the relationship ends badly and the woman or man is heart broken, that is the risk they took on. Same with the man in the relationship. If I make an investment with a risk of 1%, but a reward of 10%, I acknowledge that the 1% is worth risking to make 10% and if I lose it I know I made a fair choice because it was worth taking on the risk for greater reward. I took on the risk.

    Now, as a result of losing, if I try to go back and put more money into a bad investment and gamble to make the 1% back and become an addicted gambler, is that the markets fault? No. The market is a necessary tool for economies of scale to determine value. You knew what you were risking and agreed to risk it before making the investment. You knew what you could possibly lose and agreed to taking that risk on by your free will decision. What if making the investment turned me into a gambler? The investment didn't turn me into a gambler because I wasn't a gambler before I became a gambler. I chose to become a gambler because being a gambler was the path I chose to release my frustration, feed my greed, etc. It's not my fault for reacting to my loss with let down. It is my fault because I decided to deal with that let down by becoming a gambler. Even in bad situations, I have a choice. (Not to be confused with bad situations of physical violence and force where I am held against my will and thus must react with violence, because that then would be moral because I was transgressed first by an act of force).

    No matter how bad my pain was over the loss, and the struggle I had with the temptation to go and start gambling, none of that determines that I am or am not accountable for the investment and how I handle it.

    Now what if I go to the state and demand with mob violence that the taxpayers bail me out for my million I lost. Is that immoral? Yes. Because I may make it legal, but I am using force upon innocent people I do not own or have sovereignty over to pay or bare responsability for my money I lost. In principle, it would be no different than if I used the force of armed troops to take money from them. Force is force.

    Now, I am struggling to pay my loss back. Does that now make it moral for me to use force to make people pay for my loss? No. My ability to deal with it or make back the loss doesn't change the whether I bear responsability for my decision I made or whether it is moral or not to steal from others to make back my loss.

    As we can see, our personal circumstance doesn't necessarily change whether we are still responsible for our choices we make or whether they are moral or not.

    If the person is heartbroken by the relationship, was it her fault, or the relationship that made her the addict? It was her, because there is no statistical guarantee she had to be an addict or react that way. Her reacting was her action, not the other persons action, and how she deals with it is also her action/choice. She chose to be an addict because she chose to deal with the relationship breakup or heart break in a way that was unhealthy as opposed to healthy. Life happening to us is out of our control. How we react to it is within our control. She didn't have to deal with it by becoming an addict. But being heart broken is a natural way to cope with it and there isn't anything wrong necessarily with that, particualry because we are not hurting ourselves or someone else by coping with heart break. It is a natural process like grieving and it eventually ends. Our emotions are natural and we don't always have a say in what we feel, but we do have a say in how we feel or channel those emotions and what thoughts we feed ourselves, etc. And we have a say in what and on whom we take out our emotions on.

    Everyone could have a reason to become an addict if being an addict was not the addicts fault, because everyone has something happen to them in their lifetime that would make for a good excuse for them to become an addict.

    If someone becomes a drug addict, they are responsible because it always begins with the first hit before they were the addict. So from that point alone it is self-inflicted. Secondly, there were other options and no one was forcing them. If the man in the relationship was using her for sex, unless it was actual rape, and she agreed to it and it was consensual, then she bears responsibility for consenting to something that she should not have and later regrets. And if she was worried he was using her for sex, how was he suppose to know if you did not tell him the worry? He can't read your mind and know this. Also, many times it is very subjective. A woman can 'feel' like she is being used for sex, but there is no way to objectively determine that unless the man says he is. And if the man says he is and the woman continues to be in that relationship which is mutual, then she bears responsability, absolutely. I am aware of how in todays world, many feminists keep pushing and changing definitions, to even say if it is consent it is rape, but that is just absurd on every logical and objective level and I am talking about regretting sex, not rape. The two are not the same thing, due to the radicals changing definitions of words for political power, and because it is easier to put the blame on one person if you're regretting sex and call it rape instead of holding yourself accountable that it was a agreed upon mutual decision. I think many women and men could also look back in their lives and say maybe there is at least one relationship they regret being in which includes having sex with that person. Bad experiences and heart break and regret sex are part of the consequences that come with being young and making bad choices and growing up and learning from those bad choices. Many of us have been there.

    Becoming an addict in a relationship and being hurt is much like taking offense to something. If someone tells a joke and the other person was offended, it wasn't the jokers problem, it was their problem because offense is taken, not given. Also, not everyone is offended by the same joke and it is highly subjective for someone to say something is moral or not, because morality itself is subjective, and not everyone is offended by the same thing. Furthermore, not only is it impossible for someone to be required to be in subjection to your emotions/what you feel is offensive or not offensive, but that in of itself is force because they are requiring someone to acclimate and be subservient to their subjective moral laws, which infringes upon their freedom and sovereignty, whereas, with telling a joke, no one is being forced to laugh at it or offended by it or hear it. The hearer has the right to leave or not, but they don't own the public environment so they cannot morally force the public to not hear the joke. So the constant here is the use of force or not. This is the only way to make a moral system work because morality itself is highly subjective and inconsistent due to that. Either you think the use of force is moral or immoral and if you think it is immoral, it has to be consistent across all things to have coherency. And if someone has the right to do as they place so as long as they are not using force on someone else, that means you have to allow them to do what they do even if you do not agree with it as long as it doesn't hurt you because that is only how that system can work for everyone on an individual level. And if you recognize this, then you also have to recognize people are responsible for what they do with their freedoms/choices because if they are not responsible, it inevitably will result in that person using force to force someone else yo bear the responsability and take on the risk for what you did, which then becomes immoral.

    So if you found something as an individual is offensive, you took the offense, so it was you, not them. Likewise, if you become addicted in the relationship, it was your action and you are responsible for handling your emotions. Nothing forced you to become addicted. It was you acclimating to your emotions/feelings of hardship which grew organically from within you as a way to deal with outside stress, etc. But how you react to stress is on you, not the environment. It isn't the environments fault if you see someone die and become sad by it. You reacted to what was natural in your environment. You took offense to seeing the dead body. You were not forced to. Now, if you are someone who is afraid of getting too attached, then you also had the ability to communicate and say to the other person, you are concerned over being used for sex, or whatever it may be, therefore you want to date for at least 6 months before being expected to have sex. 'Old fashioned', yes, but adults are responsible for setting boundaries and communicating these things. All relationships like environments will create stress. It is on both people as individuals in how they deal with the stressors of the relationship.

    Someone may be used for sex in a relationship, or get too attached and addicted, and those things can be painful, but just because those are painful things to go through does not justify the moral responsability that person had in the decisions they made in the person they dated and had sex with. A lot of the time, people are hurt in relationships because the other person is a sociopath, but other times, they are just hurt by the nature of how the relationship goes...that the relationship just naturally got worse and as it got worse one or both people were hurt as a result of it, but that does not necessarily mean that the other person was intentionally trying to hurt the other person other, just because they were hurt as well. So there these issues are not always black and white.

    The point is, if two adults consent to a relationship, they are taking on risk and they are responsible for how they handle their emotions in that relationship. If someone is not capable of handling their emotions, and gets attached so easily where it is unhealthy, then they have the choice to not get into a relationship with someone if they are that concerned about it not working out well because they get emotionally attached too easily, etc. Also, if one cannot handle their emotions and is unstable, it goes both ways --- they can and often do become emotionally tyrannical to the other person and then force and immoral acts are involved. So not is it only good for the emotionally unstable one to not get into relationships if they cannot handle the consequences or responsability of their choices, but it is good for the other person as well. It is good for both people.




    If she doesn't think she can change, then that is her decision she will have to make because adults are responsible for the decisions they make. She will have to make one that is in her best interest, but if she doesn't choose to change and leave, no one else is responsible for that decision. There hopefully is support to help her of she chooses to leave, but if there isn't, that isn't immoral because no one owes her help. If I see a dead animal on the road, I am not obligated to help the dying animal just because it is dying. It's life is ending and I do not own it. Now I likely would help the animal, but I don't have to. It seems you are confusing what should be and what is moral. Yes, there should be support for the woman in the sense that people try to help and do good, but morally no one is obligated be there to support her. You can't demand people to use their time and resources forcefully to help them because your act of force is just as immoral as the force the person uses against her in the abusive relationship. Morals have to be consistent. I think this is my whole point I am trying to make. People have to be responsible for their choices because that is the only moral standard that works in a free and open society.

    When we get to the point that we say people aren't responsible for their choices because bad things happen to them, we are essentially saying they have no agency and thus they can use their lack of agency to act however they want and also be abusive. This is why there has to be a objective moral standard such as the non-aggression principle and it is the only thing that works in a free society. Once we get outside of objective ways to determine what is immoral, like physical force and violence, then things become way too subjective to measure and will always be abused. Things like your feelings, or taking offense to something. These are all too subjective. In the end, it is like with kids. When kids grow up, we all agree they are responsible for their choices, even when bad things happen, because 1) bad things happen to us all or will at some point happen to us all and 2) even under bad circumstances, it is our choice in how we react.

    If she is left with severe emotional trauma, whether the relationship was abusive or not and she just took it badly, then she is responsible for her own health, just as a sick person is, who must go to the doctors. A kid cannot make 100% responsible decisions and so that is we as adults agree that they don't have full responsability and thus decisions are made for them to various degrees. Well, if we treat adults this way, we are essentially saying they are as children and have little to no agency for the choices they make.

    These are all personal choices one must make to deal with their situation. If no one helps her then it is not a crime. No one owes her any help. People die every day as the result of life choices they made. There is nothing immoral about that.


    All of those things are sad, yes, I agree. Especially when kids are involved. But you may struggle with making such boundaries, but that doesn't mean you're not responsible for failing to do so. In the end, many people fail, but they get back up and keep trying. If you just don't do it because you struggle to do so, 1) I don't think thats a good excuse most of the time because if they truly struggled, they would keep trying and not just be like "yeah, I tried, so now I stop trying and give up.", and 2) your measure of success doesn't negate responsability.

    For example, if I am a father and I have two children, I am responsible for caring for them, correct? Now, something bad happens to be and I lose my job. I can now no longer feed my kids, so therefore, I am no longer responsible for feeding them, right? No, wrong. They are still your kids and you still have the moral obligation to care for them because you brought them into the world, so your ability to feed them or not does not negate the fact that you are responsible for them. There is no excuse to say you can now stop feeding them. It just means you failed to perform that which you were responsible for, but it doesn't change the fact that you are still responsible for them. Also, they can try to apply for other jobs, but even if they can't get another job, the responsability they have as a parent to their kids doesn't change. They can't find another job, but it doesn't change the fact that it is immoral to not feed them whether you fail or not. Your ability to fail or succeed doesn't determine the moral nature of something.

    The woman would have to draw clear boundaries and/or leave, not because that is the easy thing to do, but because that is the moral thing to do. It is the moral thing to do because she is responsible for leaving or staying and whether she struggles with it or not doesn't change that she is responsible.


    I think the problem is, you and I are operating from different frameworks or definitions of what we consider moral and immoral. I am trying to point out that one framework has faults if there are inconsistencies within it, and that is what I am trying to do with addressing responsability, free choice, having agency, and the non-aggression principle. I think you seem to look at whether something is moral more subjectively, based on whether someone is feeling a certain way or struggling, and my point is, those are all too subjective and because of that, even if bad things bad to us, we are free to choose in how we respond, and so our free choices always have to be balanced with responsability and if we do that to be consistent, we have to also acknowledge that responsability is not determined by the degree of how bad our situation is, or how badly something happens to us. Its very much like the kid and adult analogy I used.


    No worries. All is good. I apologize as well, if I said anything nasty to you.
     
  13. OP
    haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    16,834
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    I think there is a difference between venting legitimate anger at stupid people who annoy you, and using intellect as a confidence building tool at other's expense. Your case sounds more like the former.
     
Loading...