@Clayton
Yep, got it. This may be completely obtuse, but radical feminists and race baiters tend to harp a good bit about male/white "privilege" as established by White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack. They obviously have a different interpretation of privilege, one that they believe is embedded systemically through the unjust exploitation of the means of production (or something). I even read a Halloween article a couple months ago warning why you shouldn't exploit your "white privilege" to dress as an insensitive caricature of another culture--i.e., a "sexy squaw".
What do you make of this leftist notion of privilege?
LOL - I'm a white male... and still waiting for all that "privilege" I supposedly enjoy to kick in. Hasn't done me a damn lick of good. I've gotten no sweetheart promotions. No grades inflated. No backroom offers. No "no questions asked" loans or deals. I'm not saying the cops and judges aren't racist pigs... they are. It's just that 99.9% of my life has nothing to do with that underbelly of the social order so I'm left dealing with either white people who give me no favors for being white or non-white people who favor non-whites because, after all, they gotta stick together you know! Same with being a man. Men don't give a shit about other men. But women all "stick together" because they're supposedly being oppressed by the Evil Club of Men.
If anything, I would say my ethnicity has been a wash in terms of benefit/detriment and my gender is a massive detriment.
Clayton -
Clayton:I'm left dealing with either white people who give me no favors for being white or non-white people who favor non-whites because, after all, they gotta stick together you know! Same with being a man. Men don't give a shit about other men. But women all "stick together" because they're supposedly being oppressed by the Evil Club of Men. If anything, I would say my ethnicity has been a wash in terms of benefit/detriment and my gender is a massive detriment.
I doubt that. It's virtually impossible for your gender not to have afforded you better treatment than you would have otherwise gotten, probably in a lot more situations than you realize. I think you're forgetting the unseen. Depending on your lifestyle, background, and geographic location in which you spent most of your time, I'd venture to say you came out at least slightly on top with both of those characteristics.
As for minorities and women [why is the latter always considered a former?], you're right about their "sticking together"...in some instances. In many others, they'll stab each other in the back much more often than other associations. Again, it depends on a lot of environmental and other factors, but if anything ends up being a wash, I'd say it's the "girl power" stick together and the "women can get men to do whatever they want" stuff.
And how many black guys are killed by other black guys? Those numbers are insane. You consider how many black men are homicide victims, and how many black men reside in the US, and how many of those killed were at the hands of another black guy? Camaraderie only goes so far. And often times shared characteristics work against you, as a lot of boyz in the hood don't exactly like seeing "some fool" from their own backyard become successful while they're still slinging rock and ducking 5-0.
There's no question in a lot of contexts there is a sort of brotherhood thing (like, elections, for example...particularly when it's only one black person...and even more when the voting block is farther removed from the candidate i.e. a non-local election). When it's strictly white vs. black, sure, people tend to root for their color. But when it's me vs. you...color don't mean a whole hell of a lot. Particularly to people who have grown up in violent environments. And whether you believe it or not, most of the time it's not one guy as a third party viewing a white vs. black situation and choosing one or the other to favor...most of the time, it's one guy viewing himself as compared to someone else. And those comparisons usually fall along color lines.
"It's virtually impossible for your gender not to have afforded you better treatment than you would have otherwise gotten, probably in a lot more situations than you realize."
LOL - yeah, that's how my ex- was able to steal literally every cent of my net worth and has slowly but surely strangulated me into what appears to be an inevitable bankruptcy, despite having a professional career job and no major debts to speak of. Being male has been such a huge advantage for me!
Of course, being one of the many unfortunate ones involved in the divorce court setting is definitely a huge addition on the minus column. Not denying that, and I'm definitely not denying that that particular addition could make your personal situation on net, negative. But I shouldn't have to tell you none of that has anything to do with my statement you quoted.
I don't wanna make light of your situation. God knows I feel for you bro. Blood suckiing parasites and their vaginamony. But how in the hell does you being one of the good men victimized by a succubus mean you "have [not been] afforded better treatment than you would have otherwise gotten [if you weren't a man], probably in a lot more situations than you realize."?
Logical fallacy if I ever saw one. I thought you were supposed to be one of the high priests of logic around here.
John James: Clayton:I'm left dealing with either white people who give me no favors for being white or non-white people who favor non-whites because, after all, they gotta stick together you know! Same with being a man. Men don't give a shit about other men. But women all "stick together" because they're supposedly being oppressed by the Evil Club of Men. If anything, I would say my ethnicity has been a wash in terms of benefit/detriment and my gender is a massive detriment. I doubt that. It's virtually impossible for your gender not to have afforded you better treatment than you would have otherwise gotten, probably in a lot more situations than you realize. I think you're forgetting the unseen. Depending on your lifestyle, background, and geographic location in which you spent most of your time, I'd venture to say you came out at least slightly on top with both of those characteristics.
How the hell could you possibly begin to make a blanket statement like that, JJ, and claim that it's factual? Of course, I'm anticipating that you were being serious. I could just as easily say that because black people are black, that "it's virtually impossible for every person of their race to not have stolen a cart full of watermelon." You've taken an inconsistently validated (if at all) stereotype--no matter if it's positive or negative--and you've induced a piss-poor inference from an insufficient premise.
Your move, chief.
How in the hell is my calling the statistical odds of someone being treated differently based on gender throughout their life anywhere near the same as assuming someone has committed theft (and has a stereotypical affinity for large berries, which I assume is another facet you were implying) based on their skin color?
Your comment makes absolutely no sense.
thetabularasa:Your move, chief.
? You make one response that doesn't even make sense and feel so good about it that you feel the need to actually edit your post just to add this? As if this is some epic duel that's been raging on for months or something?
"Your move" I guess.
"But I shouldn't have to tell you none of that has anything to do with my statement you quoted."
It has everything to do with it - the activistic laws such as Violence Against Women Act and the many other expressions of the power of the feminist lobby are part of a much larger pattern of systematic subjugation of males as a social group. They're drugging boys with dangerous chemicals that incapacitate the higher faculties of the mind in the frontal lobe - chemical frontal lobotomy - and they're doing it like this shit is candy. A large number of young men right now are faced with very grim employment prospects ... if there is an economic collapse and the mentally deranged sociopaths in the Pentagon and White House start an invasion of Iran, we could look at yet another generation of young men wiped out in their prime, sacrificed on the altar of the God of War.
I'll just stop here. I think you really do not comprehend how sweeping and purposive the war against men really is.
I don't wanna make light of your situation. God knows I feel for you bro. Blood suckiing parasites and their vaginamony. But how in the hell does you being one of the good men victimized by a succubus mean you "have [not been] afforded better treatment than you would have otherwise gotten [if you weren't a man], probably in a lot more situations than you realize."? Logical fallacy if I ever saw one. I thought you were supposed to be one of the high priests of logic around here.
Yes, because my ex- did not have the assistance of the Sheriff's office, the Judges, the legislature, the State's free legal aid office for "poor" women divorcing their evil, working husband, etc. etc. Totally fallacious on my part...
Clayton:I'll just stop here. I think you really do not comprehend how sweeping and purposive the war against men really is.
No, conspiracy theories aside, I think I comprehend more than you want to give credit for. My only point was that you personally having an on net negative outcome from being male (by happenstance of getting into a relationship which went to court, and went through that typcial process) does not say anything to the biases that have occurred in your favor due to your being male. You may argue that the negatives in your life due to your gender have outweighed the positives...but just because the two sides aren't balanced doesn't mean only the one side exists.
All I said was that you not getting better treatment at some point in your life purely by chance of you being male, is virtually impossible...and that that is likely the case in not just situations that you would recognize and freely admit, but also in others in which you likely weren't aware. In other words, (a) there is virtually no way you have not benefitted from bias in your favor because of your gender, and (b) it is highly unlikely that you could recognize and call out every single instance in which such bias occurred.
Again, the simple fact that you believe the bias that has been laid against you outweighs any bias that worked in your favor, does not negate either A nor B. I honestly can't believe you would argue otherwise.
But if you wish to, then at least stick to the points made and actually attempt to refute one or both of those...instead of switching focus to something else...which regardless of how "related" you might think it is, does absolutely nothing to contradict them.
OK, I now understand your original statement now... it was somewhat unclearly phrased IMO.
As a separate matter, my point re. divorce law is not restricted merely to my anecdotal experience... the negative experience I and many other men have had at the hands of divorce law has repercussions, rippling effects. To the extent that these rippling effects are a desired outcome of lobbyists/activists who got these laws put in place, they reflect a war-by-other-means against the male gender.
In general I don't disagree with the notion that there is a war on men. Warren Farrell has done a great job explicating this, particularly in The Myth of Male Power.
I don't wanna make light of your situation. God knows I feel for you bro. Blood suckiing parasites and their vaginamony. But how in the hell does you being one of the good men victimized by a succubus mean you "have [not been] afforded better treatment than you would have otherwise gotten [if you weren't a man], probably in a lot more situations than you realize."? Logical fallacy if I ever saw one. I thought you were supposed to be one of the high priests of logic around here. Yes, because my ex- did not have the assistance of the Sheriff's office, the Judges, the legislature, the State's free legal aid office for "poor" women divorcing their evil, working husband, etc. etc. Totally fallacious on my part... Clayton -
Did you know that Gloria Steinem was working for the CIA? The hypothesis that her feminist works were created to split the left wing of the time or coopt it looks plump with truth however, though her work was somewhat backed by the CIA, her feminist works (Ms. Magazine in particular) don't seem to be as obviously financially and personally backed as something like "National Review".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Steinem
Have you come across any information regarding this?
Yes. Aaron Russo explained some of the motivations in one of his documentaries where he relates chats he had with Nick Rockefeller... they saw that feminism had the potential to double the number of taxpayers.... cha-ching. I think there are deeper and more powerful reasons for it, as well (reconsitution of the population to greater docility, increase of time-preference, discoordination of the family structure, child-support-as-privatized-redistribution, etc. etc.)
Oh you mean the Nick Rockefeller you and I talked about here?
Ever since I actually started looking into it and found literally no evidence (or even a hint that anyone else had found evidence) that this guy was even remotely involved with the Rockefeller family, Aaron Russo lost a lot of credibility for me. His story originally sounded quite plausible, then I come to find out this "inside source" is just some douchebag who just tried to cash in on a famous name which no one can even seem to confirm was his.
I realize this will be tantamount to sacrilege to some people, but ever since then I see the name Aaron Russo and feel disappointment and disinterest.
John James: How in the hell is my calling the statistical odds of someone being treated differently based on gender throughout their life anywhere near the same as assuming someone has committed theft (and has a stereotypical affinity for large berries, which I assume is another facet you were implying) based on their skin color? Your comment makes absolutely no sense. thetabularasa:Your move, chief. ? You make one response that doesn't even make sense and feel so good about it that you feel the need to actually edit your post just to add this? As if this is some epic duel that's been raging on for months or something? "Your move" I guess.
So now you're claiming that statistical odds = virtual impossibility if their inverse? As in, as you put it, "It's virtually impossible for your gender not to have afforded you better treatment than you would have otherwise gotten..." somehow equals a statistically probable scenario that he has, indeed, received some benefit because he's white/male (what have you)? It's as though you're saying at least 51% of the pie is virtually 99% of the pie.
"Your move, chief" is an allusion to Good Will Hunting, the film. You should check it out, came out in this time period we called the '90s and it's statistically probable that you have seen it...or as you might put it, it's "virtually impossible" that you have not seen it. Get it?
@JJ: good point... there's something fishy with Russo but he does make some damn good points.
thetabularasa:So now you're claiming that statistical odds = virtual impossibility if their inverse?
I have to assume you meant "they're"...and therefore I have to assume by this you mean to ask if I'm claiming that something that has even a slight possibility of occurring can be considered a "virtual impossibility". The answer is yes. Mathemeticians and scientists of many disciplines have no problem rounding off and saying (for example) that something which has a 5.3e-435 chance of happening, is "virtually impossible." A great example is the question as to whether there is life elsewhere in the universe. Cosmologists will readily admit that it is "virtually impossible" for there not to be life somewhere else in the universe.
"Your move, chief" is an allusion to Good Will Hunting, the film.
So you're saying it wasn't even you trying to be cool, as if you had just laid some kind of smackdown...you were literally just quoting a movie from 16 years ago for basically no reason.
Okie dokey.
John James: thetabularasa:So now you're claiming that statistical odds = virtual impossibility if their inverse? I have to assume you meant "they're"
I have to assume you meant "they're"
Nope, I meant "of" instead of "if." Serves me right for writing that at 5:30 in the morning in the dark lol.
John James: you mean to ask if I'm claiming that something that has even a slight possibility of occurring can be considered a "virtual impossibility". The answer is yes. Mathemeticians and scientists of many disciplines have no problem rounding off and saying (for example) that something which has a 5.3e-435 chance of happening, is "virtually impossible." A great example is the question as to whether there is life elsewhere in the universe. Cosmologists will readily admit that it is "virtually impossible" for there not to be life somewhere else in the universe.
you mean to ask if I'm claiming that something that has even a slight possibility of occurring can be considered a "virtual impossibility". The answer is yes. Mathemeticians and scientists of many disciplines have no problem rounding off and saying (for example) that something which has a 5.3e-435 chance of happening, is "virtually impossible." A great example is the question as to whether there is life elsewhere in the universe. Cosmologists will readily admit that it is "virtually impossible" for there not to be life somewhere else in the universe.
That's nice a priori justification. My point is that you know nothing of his individual circumstance. Presumably, you have no knowledge of who he has interacted with to what degree, and because you generalize his individuality (hence, you consider him part of a group instead of an individual) you induce a probability, which you in turn consider any alternative to the probability as being a virtual impossibility, hence my reference to the 51% (being a worst case potential probability).
Anyhow, I just find it odd that as intelligent as you are that you could make such a blanket statement regarding race and alleged benefits he's experienced solely for being white, and then you claim that anything outside of that probability (which is somehow justified by taking an individual, applying his individual decision making/location/interaction with others, though this, in fact, is an inefficient way of "knowing" anything about him as an individual) is a virtual impossibility, which further strays from any knowledge whatsoever.
Basically, my point is that generalizing "benefits" an entire race holds vs. other races (or even at the expense of other races [not suggesting that you went that far]) is ludicrous from a standpoint of logic (I would count it as a slippery slop argument). There are individuals, there are individuals who are white, but to claim that you know anything about that individual without knowing what that individual has personally experienced is to grasp at nothing, in my opinion. I don't claim to know anything about anybody without first knowing something about them other than the color of their skin and how others I've witnessed (who also have that same skin color) have been treated.
I don't care about stances regarding race; that's boring to me. I just found it odd that you of all people on here, who seem to be the most consistent with his logic, carelessly stated you knew anything about him when, again presumably, you know nothing of how he's been treated due to his race, which flies in the face of his personal testimony stating he hasn't received any direct benefits.
That's nice a priori justification.
Two things:
1.) His explanation is expressly not a priori in that it is empirical.
2.) I think you should read a little bit about that term, other than the mere definition, because you are using it incorrectly. a priori refers to a category of knowledge. That is, it refers to something that it is impossible to verify apart from logic (which is a priori). It is not just a proposition that one does not know for sure or a synonym for "subjective judgement" as it seems to be used around here. Statistics and Probability are not a priori categories; they are empirical. Time, space, causation, logic; these are a priori categories.
thetabularasa:My point is that you know nothing of his individual circumstance. Presumably, you have no knowledge of who he has interacted with to what degree
Oh I get it. So you, like, made an assumption about my individual circumstance and then proceeded to extrapolate an entire blanket argument based on your baseless assumption...and lecture me on the dangers of talking about things you don't specifically know.
Nice!
Aristophanes:Two things:
Yeah I thought about bringing that up, but I figured if I got sucked into calling out everything this guy does incorrectly and/or for nothing other than to seem above the fray, I'd never be finished.
Aristophanes: That's nice a priori justification. Two things: 1.) His explanation is expressly not a priori in that it is empirical. 2.) I think you should read a little bit about that term, other than the mere definition, because you are using it incorrectly. a priori refers to a category of knowledge. That is, it refers to something that it is impossible to verify apart from logic (which is a priori). It is not just a proposition that one does not know for sure or a synonym for "subjective judgement" as it seems to be used around here. Statistics and Probability are not a priori categories; they are empirical. Time, space, causation, logic; these are a priori categories.
I mean a priori in the sense of knowledge/justification independent of (or before) experience. Perhaps I have the wrong definition? I know etymologically it is Latin meaning "from what comes first."
Regardless, I'm not taking a social stance on this. I'm seriously wondering how JJ, and perhaps you Aristophanes, consider knowledge to be a priori at all. I realize that Mises speaks of this, but I've yet to delve into AE surrounding epistemology. Perhaps this is the perspective you and JJ are coming from? Basically, again, what I mean is this:
Presumably, JJ does not know Clayton. Clayton said something to the effect of not having an unfair advantage or receiving benefits as white people stereotypically do even though he is, himself, white. JJ says that he probably has, all while not knowing one way or the other. Hence, my a priori reference: JJ took prior experiences that he has presumably witnessed with white people and social benefits and induced a theory that Clayton has probably received these benefits without realizing it. If there was an a posteriori approach to knowledge, or "coming after" the experience of witnessing Clayton as an individual, then I would certainly agree that he could know one way or the other. My entire point is that without witnessing (experiencing) Clayton's life in reference to how he is treated for being white, there's no way JJ could know one way or the other. Hence my criticism of his blanket statement of "probably" receiving these benefits. He has no proof and thus no evidence to provide a basis for knowledge.
John James: thetabularasa:My point is that you know nothing of his individual circumstance. Presumably, you have no knowledge of who he has interacted with to what degree Oh I get it. So you, like, made an assumption about my individual circumstance and then proceeded to extrapolate an entire blanket argument based on your baseless assumption...and lecture me on the dangers of talking about things you don't specifically know. Nice!
? WTF are you talking about? You're entertaining, JJ, and I enjoy conversing with you in the forums, but sometimes I seriously don't understand where you're coming from. If you want to understand my position, read what I wrote above to Aristophanes.
thetabularasa: John James: thetabularasa:My point is that you know nothing of his individual circumstance. Presumably, you have no knowledge of who he has interacted with to what degreeOh I get it. So you, like, made an assumption about my individual circumstance and then proceeded to extrapolate an entire blanket argument based on your baseless assumption...and lecture me on the dangers of talking about things you don't specifically know. Nice!? WTF are you talking about?
John James: thetabularasa:My point is that you know nothing of his individual circumstance. Presumably, you have no knowledge of who he has interacted with to what degreeOh I get it. So you, like, made an assumption about my individual circumstance and then proceeded to extrapolate an entire blanket argument based on your baseless assumption...and lecture me on the dangers of talking about things you don't specifically know. Nice!
Seriously?...
thetabularasa:My point is that you know nothing of his individual circumstance.
I would love to hear how you know this.
thetabularasa:I don't claim to know anything about anybody
Is that so.
Probability absolutely is a priori. You might want to dig a little deeper into what probability actually is.
Alex Jones and Piers Morgan have little to gain by attempting to sound reasonable to an indefinite majority of the people. They are not running for presidency.
Instead both want to appeal to specific target groups within the general population.
And these groups scarcely intersect. So such a "debate" can be a major victory for both of them.
Alex Jones histrionics for instance have different effects on different people. Since he runs a niche business he can afford being seen as a lunatic by 90% of Piers audience, insofar as he succeeds in connecting well with the remaining 10%, he will turn a net profit.
That's because most people that already tolerate or even admire his antics will not be disturbed by his behavior, on the contrary, they will consider it legit.
Therefore Alex Jones can effectively grow his own brand by acting like that on Piers Morgan show.
Conversely, Piers Morgan also benefits. He manages to showcase to his target audience how much rage he can leverage from a typical leader of a group that his target audience already consider as repugnant.
So Piers Morgan grows his own brand.
It's win win.
The advances of a general "cause" of gun rights is a secondary afterthought for both of them. It is hard to specify how it is affected by this occasion because it's such a vague notion.
Maybe more people become disgusted with gun owners, as a short term impact of Jones craziness, but maybe some gun rights people that were marginally engaged now feel the need to participate more, and the long term impact might be positive (for gun rights people).
It's a complicated and massively unpredictable process, but it's also marginally important for both Morgan and Jones.
I'm not going to argue about this, because you are pretty much right, but I tend to think Probability is at best a form of synthetic reasoning. You need a few stats before you can begin to deduce. a priori categories won't have that constraint. I don't think the business/financial community uses the term in quite the same sense that philosophers do.
Aristophanes: Probability absolutely is a priori. You might want to dig a little deeper into what probability actually is. I'm not going to argue about this, because you are pretty much right, but I tend to think Probability is at best a form of synthetic reasoning. You need a few stats before you can begin to deduce. a priori categories won't have that constraint. I don't think the business/financial community uses the term in quite the same sense that philosophers do.
I'm mainly speaking from the perpsective of the probability course I took at university as part of my math degree. It was essentially probability theory with proofs and derivations for the equations used in "sadistics" (as the probability professor joked) e.g. first moment, variance, covariance, distribution/density function, etc. We solved a lot of double integrals. Heh. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to fit statistics into my courses. I may take it as a post-bac, though.