Truth
Truth is an unseen quality that emanates from the masculine principle. A lie is the lack of truth that develops in the absence of manliness. The more honesty a man exhibits the more manly he becomes.
As our society becomes more feminized, which in reality means becoming less masculine, truth gives way to lying. I can remember in the early stages of my business career even large orders were figured on the back of an envelope and given verbally. Then purchase order numbers became a requirement, then written purchase orders became necessary, and finally the purchase orders included pages of legalistic fine print. Men understand the spirit of the law, women believe in the letter of the law. (One is seen and the other is unseen). Since there is always someway to circumvent the letter of the law more lawyers and legalese are required to conduct business as women have increased their presence in the labor force.
Men used to do business on a handshake, the modern equivalent of let your yes be yes and your no be no. When’s the last time you heard a woman say yes and no? Children no longer receive training concerning right and wrong, instead they are taught legal and illegal. They no longer know a lie from the truth.
Since increasing numbers of our society are raised without knowledge of right and wrong, living with a lie has become increasingly acceptable. Four internationally known lies that we have accepted are: Roe versus Wade, The Gulf of Tonkien Resolution, Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the Duke rape case. All four of these situations were based on lies. The plaintiff in Roe versus Wade was never raped; nothing happened at the Gulf of Tonkien, no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, and the plaintiff in the Duke case was not raped. Nothing has been done about any of the perpetrators of these lies. Nothing.
As an aside, I will point out to women who read this article and who might have sons, know that the number of men in prison unjustly accused and convicted of rape numbers in the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands. The true rape occurs when they enter prison. Before you embrace feminist rhetoric and lies, think about what might happen to your sons, brothers and fathers.
We take sides on the four issues that evolved as a result of these lies, but we do not address the lie at all. The destruction in human life that the first three lies created has been enormous. The emotional effect on those accused of rape at Duke was devastating, and had it not been that their parents had money they would have become penal institution statistics and forgotten by the general public.
As you might be surmising by now this article is written to further address the response to my article Pictures and Points made by a separate article written by Joyanna Williams. In comments made to my original article Joyanna indicated that Hedy Lamarr had made a superb invention in communications that affects the entire telecommunications industry to this day. I mentioned to her that a friend told me our telecommunications industry is based on many inventions developed by and stolen from Nicola Tesla. I showed no animosity towards her and my words were, “I trust you to do the research.”
And what was her response? She writes a separate article and headlines it “Hedy Lamarr: Silly Bimbo? Or Inventor? Nobody Answers Elder George.” What she meant was Look at me, that is, ME, It’s ME Joyanna and I want everybody at MND to see that my sword is drawn and I’m going to offer Elder George’s head on a plate. Watch ME.
Her article provided another forum for my ideas and I am elated at the response. I am somewhat amused as well, for that 500 word article was written in haste to meet a newspaper deadline four years ago.
Getting back to Joyanna’s article, it had no proof of her contention at all. She did however prove my article in that she didn’t get the point. I have no axe to grind with Joyanna. One of the readers sent me an E-mail that stated, “Genetics probably prevents Joyanna from getting the point, but what excuse do the men have?” I will refer to the male response later, but first a few material considerations for Joyanna’s understanding.
A few years ago I called the U.S. patent Office and asked what percentage of patents are given to women. The response was that there are no gender statistics on patents. That might seem strange inasmuch as, the government can give a gender breakdown on most everything else. But most patents come from men and the feminist dominated government does not care to provide that statistic. I pressed the contact I had to make an estimate and he indicated that maybe 5% of the patents go to women. Shortly after that I obtained a copy of all the patents granted in New York State the preceding year and went through it name by name. After deducting the John and Mary Smith joint patents from the list, I arrived at a figure of about 5%. My contact’s estimate was a good one. Now how many of these patents were conceptual in nature? Probably none. In my article the term I used was conceptual inventions, not patents. Women are adaptable and they make adaptations to the world men created for them. (That’s another point.) Hence they get patents for the Barbie Doll, disposal diaper, and White Out.
So desperate are feminist influenced women to prove that they can do what men can do that they will grab at any straw just as Joyanna did. When asked to prove women’s competence in science the name always brought up is that of Marie Currie. Even if Marie Currie did everything on her own without any direction or help from her husband, what does it prove about the likely hood of women succeeding in science? Marie Curie is not of this century or the last. She was born two centuries ago. Since her birth about 10 billion people have been born, half of them women. For those who have studied statistics, when something happens once every 5 billion times it is not even considered a possibility that it will happen again. The event is considered to be an aberration. Babe Didrickson Zaharias was also an aberration. Men recognized the performance of these two women without any feminist or governmental prodding. Men always recognize performance. But when the likelihood of one woman in 5 billion becoming a great scientist is compared with the fact that 4.9 billion of the women became mothers, it does not take deep thinking as to what to train the women for. The aberrations somehow rise to the top on their own.
Google will contain commentary that Hedy Lamarr was a great electrical engineer and inventor. She was not an electrical engineer nor was she an engineer. She studied acting in school. Nor was she an inventor, even though her name is on the patent. That information is a much a lie as Roe versus Wade.
Joyanna, I am asking you for the third time, name me a woman who made a conceptual invention on her own. I’m not saying you will never find one, but you will have to search long and hard, and its frequency of occurrence will fall into the category of aberration and will prove my point.
Now for some male logic on Hedy Lamarr’s invention. Firstly, Hedy’s major contribution to the cinema was that she was the first woman to be completely nude in a film and the first one to act through having an orgasm. Her husband was so embarrassed by these pictures that he attempted to by up every one of the films. She did not study engineering nor was she a tinkerer. When she ran away from her first husband and came to America she continued her acting career. Supposedly one night in working with a composer she got the idea for an invention. Now if this was a great invention that would affect the telecommunications industry of the world, is it reasonable to conclude that after that she went on with her acting career? That would be the equivalent of a man writing a great concerto and then going into the floor waxing business for the rest of his life.
We were also at war with the Axis powers at the time, wouldn’t our government have pressed this inventive genius into service for the war effort? Also, wouldn’t this great mind have produced great or intelligent acting? Hedy was a sex symbol. She never received any nominations and after Word War II her career ebbed. Wouldn’t she then have decided to further her great inventive genius? She didn’t because it wasn’t there.
The whole Hedy Lamarr inventive genius is a lie just as Roe versus Wade and the Duke rape case were lies. Just because the lie is repeated internationally doesn’t make it any less a lie.
Men deal primarily in the unseen and women deal primarily in the seen; that is our partnership in propagating and preserving the species. Conceptual inventions come from the unseen. Standards and principles are unseen as well. I have never stated in articles, in lectures, or in my book any feminine characteristic as a negative, but I do challenge those who say that women are the same as men. We have forgotten our purpose in being and have perverted the natural relationship of men to women.
Do you get the point?
If you want more info on the subject you can contact me through my website at www.mensaction.net. I’m old fashioned; I answer all communications within 24 hours.
P.S. This article contains many points.
I'm also the Chief of Men's Action to Rebuild Society, an organization that not only addresses the issues confronting you, but takes action to resolve these issues. | More from Elder George
Stumble It!
July 10th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Mike LaSalle — “But, there you are. I’m an “Action” kind of guy, and I don’t care who does not like it. ”
You’re still not getting it. You’re trying to prove to me that, because you took masculine action on your website, then you can never be accused of rejecting masculine action on the issue of women’s inventiveness.
Concentrate on the here and now, and stop dragging the goalposts further and further away from me.
“Now, objectively, I understand that the average person might roll their eyes on hearing that their unschooled neighbor has originated a coherent Theory of Everything with practically no academic knowledge, no credentials, and no peer review.”
But I would not, because I would never sink to such a feminine way of evaluating someone’s ideas. (So, you see, the best part about knowing which traits are masculine and which are feminine is that a guy like me is much less likely to use feminine traits.)
July 10th, 2007 at 11:59 am
MMX – you said,
I know something about the “unseen”, MMX.
I have written down the broad outlines of my personal conceptualization of the Theory of Everything. You can get started by visiting my website BicameralUniverse.com.
Now, objectively, I understand that the average person might roll their eyes on hearing that their unschooled neighbor has originated a coherent Theory of Everything with practically no academic knowledge, no credentials, and no peer review.
But, there you are. I’m an “Action” kind of guy, and I don’t care who does not like it.
I write of the TOE because I have been an informal student of this question since I was a child.
Additionally, as a young man, I was exposed to “knowledge” from an “unseen” source – a “revelation” of sorts.
The knowledge I gained was an ineluctable fragment of what EG might respect as “Truth”. But at the age of 17, I had no context for such vast knowledge, so my intellectual quest for this context has been a life’s work.
But ‘revealed’ knowledge is not a substitute for observed knowledge and a common method of interpreting information.
That’s what you don’t get. But don’t worry – you’re in good company. This sort of argument has been going on for centuries. I see EG’s construct as a pipe-smoking knock-off of Nietzsche’s Blond Beast. But the days of being able to Will Yourself to Power are over, son. Will is very, very good – even indispensable – but it is empty without the disciplined use of common methods.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:57 am
To conservativation,
I’m sending amfortas my best wishes, my feelings of comeraderie, and my blessings. Nothing else. I am not devoting effort to making a man see what he will not see.
Also, as I have said before, I am not here to evangelize but to share a viewpoint, or is it a point? My article Picutures and Points, along with Joyanna’s responding ariticle and this one have already elicited more that 200 responses, not only from the regulars, but from those who are new to or relatively new to my writings. That shows interest, and since most of the comments were in the affirmative, understanding.
Let’s move on.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:38 am
amfortas —
(1) “Cons, the studies do NOT relate these qualities to males and females. They show that the degree of effect is slightly more pronounced in one or the other sexes, but no study shows exclusivity.”
Exclusivity has nothing to do with the masculine and feminine concepts, because these concepts are not exclusive. How, otherwise, would feminized men be able to argue like little girls? Masculine and feminine are unseen concepts that are not, and have never been, exclusive.
This is why we all know men who agrue like girls, and women who work like men. Because we know that masculine and feminine are concepts, we don’t have the often sad-looking need to focus on men and women!
(2) “I do not seek the lowest common denominator. In fact the opposite. The highest common factor is intelligence.”
Okay, first you want it to be gender neutral, as in, “doesn’t show up more prevalently in one gender than it does another. But then you focus the burden of proof to exclusivity?!? That’s demanding the impossible, just so no one can move forward.
As in, MMX acquires the fifty-five wealthiest businessmen and convinces them to lecture freely on how men can builds habits by which they can become wealthier. Just as the first lecturer is about to speak, amfortas brings the ONE wealthiest businesswoman and declares that the conference cannot possibly work, because much of what the businessman will say can also work for women. Thus, the lecturers are really teaching the men to behave like girls, which is a no-no, even if it’ll make them wealthier.
Exclusivity is a cockblocking device, a way of extending the proof such that it’s not provable. And so you’ll feel superior to us by presenting us with an argument that no one can solve, rather than allowing us to solve the arguments we can solve.
(3) “To me it is more a matter of intelligence, not simply masculinity – unless you can show otherwise.”
It’s your fault that you can’t see it, because you have a need for 100.0000000000000000000000000% exclusivity which ignores the 99.99999999999% pattern. This is very much like a man who cannot eat a sundae because it has half a peanut on the very top, “because I’m allergic to peanuts.”
Just take your spoon and remove it. Then eat! For God’s sake, EAT!
July 10th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Cons, the studies do NOT relate these qualities to males and females. They show that the degree of effect is slightly more pronounced in one or the other sexes, but no study shows exclusivity. Slightly is the key point of them.
July 10th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Sending.
July 10th, 2007 at 9:03 am
send eg an email amfortas, or eg feel free to share mine with him. or you can send me a message at divorce_in_the_church@yahoo.com. Thats my public clearing house.
Best
July 10th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Cons, you are a good bloke. A real seeker of understanding. But no, I am not going with that analogy, (”But I kind of see your observations as analogous to saying, for example, that you wouldn’t accept that men are stronger then women because all the men you meet are weaklings or something like that”.) but directly to intellectual differences.
To me it is more a matter of intelligence, not simply masculinity – unless you can show otherwise. It would be fine to think of men in general as all having a level of masculinity or any other feature that is sufficient for the purpose described but that is not my experience of men in general or women for that matter. It is a matter of specificly talented individuals. A small percentage. 50% of both sexes are below average and of those a considerable proportion have difficulty with shoe laces and dribbling.
Maybe the analogy could be correct if you didn’t move it to physical strength! The physically strong do not have to see everyone else as ‘weaklings’ when recognising and correctly assessing their own abilities. It isn’t an issue of looking down on people, rather simply one of recognising particularities.
Whatever that avenue, it doesn’t advance us further along the issue of the Assertion. That simply hasn’t been addressed by either EG or you, or anyone else other than Mike.
I don’t usually do this but I wonder if you’d care to email me. We can discuss things of experience in a more discreet manner. Do you have a blog or something with a contact point on it that I can email you on?
Failing that, MIKE, how do I get my email address to conservativation without my disclosing it here for everyone to see? Can you dig into the MND innards and fetch out our email addresses and send mine to him?
July 10th, 2007 at 8:42 am
These four paragraphs are taken from the article that appears to the right, called He Thinks She Thinks. One could hardly say that this article is unflattering to women, but it empirically demonstrates what EG has been saying…thanks Mike for posting it. Read the whole article. I’d say it decidedly slants towards female capability, perhaps rightly so, but it also buttresses the Points and Pictures concept.
1.Men are faster at mentally rotating an object—imagining what something looks like from a different perspective—and have an internal compass that enables them to squint up at the sun to figure out cardinal directions. Women, on the other hand, rely on landmarks—bear right at the church, turn left after the fire station—to find their way around.
2.Brain imaging techniques revealed that men found their way out of the maze using the left hippocampus, a memory storage region that also governs spatial mapping in the physical environment. Women employed their right parietal and prefrontal cortices, which are linked to visual identification and reasoning. The women’s use of the prefrontal cortex, say researchers, suggests that they relied on landmarks and pictured the objects in their minds, while the men used both landmarks and geometric cues, like shapes and angles, to escape the maze.
3.We also know that the brain’s right hemisphere distills the essence of a situation, the central idea, while the left side mulls the finer points and tracks the details. Consequently, this right-left amygdala division may also illuminate why women remember every excruciating detail of a blowup they had on their honeymoon—where they were, what they were wearing, the time of day—while their husbands barely recall the tiff.
4.In a subsequent UC Irvine experiment, Cahill and his colleagues gave study participants a drug, the beta blocker propranolol, which blunts emotionally charged memories by blocking signals to the amygdala. Then they were shown an emotionally disturbing movie about a boy run over by a car. A week later, when volunteers were quizzed about the film’s content, the males with the beta blocker had trouble remembering the gist of what they saw—the boy being run over by a car. In females, the drug did the converse, interfering with their ability to recall peripheral details, like the fact that the boy had been carrying a soccer ball.
In number 1. note the “concept” of the rotated view, something for which there is no picture available to the man. Note the landmarks for the woman, these are pictures.
In number 2 they identify the women using the part of the brain that stores PICTURES!
Number 3 talks of the POINT, that being as they say the “distillation of the essence of the situation”, the “central idea”, THE POINT! The left side, where the women fire it up, stores the details (excruciating it says), THE PICTURES.
Finally note the beta blocker experiment and exactly WHAT was blocked in the women. It was THE PICTURES, the details.
Amfortas I’m just not sure that, if you accept this study, you can claim there exists no evidence any longer.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:20 am
Habeas Corpus is another very good example of “Western innovations in liberty”.
Even today – in the Eastern world where ‘Patriarchy’ reigns supreme – Habeas Corpus remains an elusive ideal. Eastern patriarchies don’t like Habeas Corpus because it puts a crimp in the unseen authority of privileged men to oppress unprivileged men.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:17 am
I misspoke again, in my beginning I should have said “you see thick men and thick women daily, not men as thick as women….geez.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Allow me amfortas to say that my comment on the denominator stands in how I meant it, but I didn’t say it correctly at all. What I meant was you point out how, in your experience, you see men as thick as women daily, and therefore (I’m now surmising and could be wrong) do not see a gender characteristic so much as a societal one whereby society has led itself to the lowest common denominator. But I kind of see your observations as analogous to saying, for example, that you wouldn’t accept that men are stronger then women because all the men you meet are weaklings or something like that.
I absolutely agree with you on the stratification by intellect and I’m glad that somehow I’ve found my way at least to the middle, and can find others there as well. We needn’t all be hyper genius to have a better ordered situation.
The evidence you seek is not presented le by others very easily. It is in your daily doings. It is in your experiences with the genders. And you like most here have some trouble in your past with marriage, that pinnacle of gender relation, and I dare guess the matters of subject here are/were applicable to the dynamics inside most failed marriages (those that fail not due to tangible grounds, but because the people just don’t get on well)
I did bring a piece of third party evidence to the original points and pictures post, that being the study I read about gender and debate or argument. The conclusions there were massively indicative of what EG has asserted here. I wish I could send a link but I read it and moved on.
There is an article posted here about wives and power. If I could get my hands on those tapes I guarantee you I’d show you evidence. These men in general were not being out debated by the women, the men were acquiescing to the fact that to resist is futile. But did you see the conclusion? Marriages are happier in proportion to the level of influence the man accepts from the woman. Like I keep saying, the country and western writers had that nailed without a fancy study. If momma ain’t happy, nobody is happy.
I spoke of an impeachment exercise and how I’m loath to participate. But do let me ask a couple questions and leave a teaser. If you accept the differences, then where do you go from there? What are the differences? The answer to that question is the point of these articles. Don’t get lost in the seeming hyperbole in EG’s writing. Re-read it using less exacting adjectives and verbs. Mike got a little concerned with the absolutes and the definitions. Don’t do that.
I think you actually agree with us here, but somehow, and it is not in your nature, you are missing the point a bit or focusing on that micro aspect of inventiveness. The point is not controversial. You live it daily. Just watch.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:09 am
To monkeyinthemirror,
Very well put. The motivation behand the actions of your father were unseen qualities. They did not require proof. They were understood. Maybe not even understood, just felt.
It is refreshing to read a positive description of someone’s father.
July 10th, 2007 at 12:30 am
Cons, I am surprised at you. “Instead of seeking the lowest common denominator as Amfortas has, that being everyone is an idiot and only the crème del la crème think and invent (for the record I do not mean EVERYONE…these days I must qualify exceptions) why not analyze the differences in thinking? Where do they lead you? It’s so easy and PC to say “well everyone is lame”. When no one called anyone lame it rings hollow.”
I do not seek the lowest common denominator. In fact the opposite. The highest common factor is intelligence. If anyone is looking at the lowest common denominator it is EG and by extension, you. Don’t go projecting your misapprehensions onto me! ‘Masculinity’ covers 50% of the population. It is precisely the differences in thinking that I am pointing at. That is my point.
My intent was not to say everyone is lame. Normal everyday behavious tend to be much of a muchness, and fine for that, whereas invention tends to be reflective and intellectual and set apart.
EG (and you) may have a terminological handle to grasp in this ’seen and unseen’ thingo, but neither of you have shown any empirical proofs. Frankly Until you do, all I see is a lot of cock and bull.
tell, me Con – and I generally resspect your views, you know that – tell me why I should blindly accept some assertion when I cannot for the life of me see any connections to reality being made.
Cons, you know full well that I am not thick. Please don’t assume that I am just because the hill you stand on is covered in clouds.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
cons — Tremendous post, man. (#33)
Mike LaSalle — These conceptual innovators, of course, were all men – Western men.
Does that mean that any man born East of the Bosporus is incapable of conceptualizing human liberty? And does that then mean Eastern men are more prone to lies than Western men?
The implications are indeed slippery.
There are no implications to this at all, (except if you believe there’s something mystically magical about being in the “West” that can never be found in the “East”.)
Besides, since YOU proposed that there are implications, YOU have to outline whichs ones you see and WHY they exist.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
I have had the good fortune to be raised by the most honest man I have ever known. His honesty did not need to be defined by a thousand words. It was defined by his simple actions every single day of his life. When he spoke, he spoke truth the best he knew. When he promised, he promised only what he could deliver, and he delivered. He was quick to help both friend and stranger. We had little in the way of material things when I was young. And yet I never felt the lack. He taught me that honesty and strength of character were more important than money or fame. And he lived those words every day. Yes, he occasionly fell. Who doesn’t? He accepted the blame, and did his best to make things right.
He could have shown me the definition of honesty in the dictionary. But that would not have taught me honesty. His daily, living example taught me. I see people every day who know the definitions of honesty and truth, but practice neither.
Honesty and truth, principles and strength of character … these are not definitions in a book. They are ways of life. They are forces that affect all the lives around us.
I hope this comes across correctly. My desire to express myself often exceeds my ability …
… and, thanks Dad.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Mike, I agree with your last post.
And?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
These conceptual innovators, of course, were all men – Western men.
Where is the apology? This denegrates women.
I agree with you on the western thing….said it before.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
A “law” occurs in the context of a pre-existing “principle”. This is true whether we are talking about human law or natural law.
The codification of laws is a relatively new phenomenon in human experience.
Codification was a necessary precursor to the establishment of certain human liberties that most of us now take for granted.
I dare say most all conceptual innovations in human liberty were made by Western minds. From the codification of laws, to the establishment of the Magna Carta and English law, and even in the libertarian implications of Protestantism.
These conceptual innovators, of course, were all men – Western men.
Does that mean that any man born East of the Bosporus is incapable of conceptualizing human liberty? And does that then mean Eastern men are more prone to lies than Western men?
The implications are indeed slippery.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Ok Mike then lets call it the masculine nature, the masculine characteristic, the things that are present in masculine people, masculinity, call it biily bob, it matters not. I am traveling or I’d scan the list of fallacies that would address what you’ve done in picking a word from the argument, negating it, and ignoring the context.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
EG said, “Truth is an unseen quality that emanates from the masculine principle.”
I have a number of issues with EG’s use of such terms as “the masculine principle”.
Here’s a good definition of the term “Principle” as a descriptor of an archetypal condition:
Thus “laws” occur in the context of a pre-existing “principle”. This is true whether we are talking about human law or natural law.
EG’s use of the term “principle” is not credible because he has provided no single definition, but only a vague assertion that depends entirely on the readers’ credulity.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
IT IS NOT ABOUT INVENTORS! Why must we remain in this corner while there is an entire mansion to explore?
Mike thank you for the link. I keep a paper list of fallacies on my desk, though I do not always test my own words against them. And I have the same pedigree as most, I took two logic courses in college, I guess that makes me logical?!? I can spot fallacy in the words of others much easier then I can my own, I think I’m normal in that.
But while the rest of you keep harping we do await the list of female inventors (since you all seem to like this crowded corner). If you tell me that potentially a bunch of women invented things and the husbands took credit, with zero back up and just chivalry, that you do not even know you are demonstrating, as motivation then join the gang of 9/11 conspiracy theorists and please visit Roswell and say hello to little green man for me. It is great to be generous with kudos, just please place them where they belong, not where the heart says they belong.
Mike I agree with Virtue above so I will not restate his solid concise pointed question. On a previous thread you claimed that our emotion lost the argument. You lost me there, and if it is even possible I am even more lost now. I have the utmost respect for you Mike and you mainly blow me away with the short comments you occasionally toss into the discourse here, but I am incredulous about this one and why we are spending so much time on Joyanna’s argument in a discussion about general points of view and methodology of thought.
It is almost as if someone need attempt the impeachment of the witness here. Asking very basic yes or no questions to lead someone to a place where, regardless if they say yes or no, it makes the point. It could be done but it is pedestrian and insulting to the receiver of the questions. And it sounds childish from the deliverer.
I bet there is more agreement then disagreement under the surface here. I believe there are guilt assuaging emotions at play, maybe even a wife or two looking over a shoulder, and every bit of that is unfortunate. For as MMX said, when did EG “put women in their place”?
The world, the MRM, MND, hell even my best friends don’t teeter on the precipice of my opinions of them. But for my tiny little corner of the world I am appalled by the reactions here to these articles.
One mustn’t buy EG’s notions and create a religion from them. No one need go slap the wife or kick the dog. Could you start by saying that men and women think differently?
Or are we too afraid to admit that, having been conditioned to believe that to say so means man is better? If you agree that we think differently you have to go somewhere with that notion. You cannot just make such a statement and fear it’s extrapolation. Even id there are bad extrapolations, there are bound to be, you, as a thinking man, MUST go somewhere with that.
Instead of seeking the lowest common denominator as Amfortas has, that being everyone is an idiot and only the crème del la crème think and invent (for the record I do not mean EVERYONE…these days I must qualify exceptions) why not analyze the differences in thinking? Where do they lead you? It’s so easy and PC to say “well everyone is lame”. When no one called anyone lame it rings hollow.
I go back to my original challenged point…not only are you (collectively) being defensive, you protest too much. That usually means something doesn’t it?
Mike….not intending to be provocative for provocations sake.
July 9th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
“come back sisters all is forgiven”..tom youre bipolar delusional…
I’m saying..come back over here sisters…now it’s time to pay the piper (in jail)for all the men youve falselly put in jail because of youre victim hysteria..
.FEMINIST VICTIM DEMAGOGUERY
AND THE SUBSEQUENT CULTURE
OF ANTI-MALE HYSTERIA IS LEADING TO
SOME SERIOUS EQUAL PROTECTION
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS FOR
MEN/FATHERS/BOYS…………..
July 9th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Scottkirk – I’d take a feminist over a prostitute, every day of the week. When there are no feminists left, and you’ve run out of money, then what?
Come back sisters, all is forgiven.
At least there are a few feminists left in (The UK) government.
How many more years of resergent ho-feminism, before US men get sick of it? You’ve had 10. Another 10? Another 5,000? The stronger the ‘patriarchy’, the stronger the hoe count. Your mother will be the only non-hoe out there.
How many more years of resurgent hoeing, before WOMEN get sick of it?
I take a zero tolerance approach to whores, particularly the housewives.
July 9th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
For Mr Mike LaSalle,
Using logic you cannot disprove what EG is saying. So you move on to call it poetry and opinion rather than try and form an argument. What is it that you disagree with so much that it destroys your ability to argue?
July 9th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
TRUTH – If you’re masculine enough to see that masculine and feminine are unseen concepts, you’ll very quickly understand why the feminine unseen force never invents anything.
But if you’re NOT masculine enough to see that masculine and feminine are unseen concepts, you’ll try to prove that masculine and feminine don’t even exist by focusing the debate on penises and vaginas.
Masculine people focus on the unseen forces, while not-masculine-enough people focus on “men and women”, using the default logic of, “A man is anyone who has a penis, but a woman is anyone who has a vagina.”
TRUTH: No amount of feminine focus on the seen can compensate for the completely inability to grasp the unseen.
July 9th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Rely Tampons
July 9th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
tom…American women are realiseing they have been duped by the feminasty’s.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
I read recently, American women are returning to the home, the numbers of economically active American women having peaked six years ago, and now declining. If you want to encourage this trend, just keep voting right-wing anti-feminists in.
You anti-feminist men are so desperate, you don’t want to give up the hope of getting some by paying for it/being a man etc.
Show some self worth!
July 9th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
amfortas said:
Bingo.
I, too, rolled my eyes with the very first sentence.
“Truth is an unseen quality that emanates from the masculine principle.”
Virtually every sentence EG has written on this site adheres to this “standard” of discourse – which is to say, there is no standard at all.
Yes, cons, there are indeed ‘rules of logic’. Here’s a nice list of logical fallacies on wikipedia
In EG’s very first sentence, makes an appeal to the “unseen”, and to “truth”. In the next few sentences, we are introduced to the “masculine principle”, and it special relationship with “truth”.
This is called an “argument from conviction” – also known as an “Argument from Incredulity”…
REF
I don’t mean to be dismissive, EG, but what you have written is poetry–not well reasoned argument.
Poetry is wonderful. But it is aimed at the heart, not the mind.
And in the search for “truth”, heartfelt poetry is no match for the sharp edges of logical discourse.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
thurston861 said:
The debate is here is free and open to anyone who can engage with reason and without gratuitous invective.
You have proven repeatedly that you are unable to handle either of these simple requirements.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:59 am
thurston…I’m not offended by youre confrontationalism…I myself have been known to walk into a room of pigs rolling in their own feces…and say something here stinks!!
but the personal attacks are counter-productive.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:42 am
tom youre rhetoric gives youre position away…you speak from the “women-as-victim” perspective…which as i mentioned to you before is feminist social control…
anthropologists around the world agree that the most liberated group of people the world has ever witnessed in terms of health, wealth, leasure time and general life options …..is the middle class white female…
How did she get their??? the non-stop women-as-victim rhetoric of the new gender feminist…
July 9th, 2007 at 11:36 am
tom — If you can show me any article wherein Elder specifically said he believes women should remain in the home, just because they’re women, I’ll pay you $100. But if you can’t you’ll pay me $20. Do we have a deal?
If you say no, then you’re admitting to everyone that you make up horrible sounding crap in order to raise the group against the individual.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:35 am
It seems to me were gonna have to agree to disagree over who thinks more like a man!!!
I think most people here are more concerned with what is effective activism, and what simply is’nt effective activism…
Amfortas welcomed me to mensnewsdaily with a message that was reasoneable and middle of the road..(which is simply more effective than stating women are stupid…here’s the proof)
July 9th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Men and women tend to lie about different things. The more we promote women to positions of equal dominance, the more accountable women will become. George thinks women should be kept in the home. I think george should be kept in a home.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:05 am
amfortas — You’ll notice that YOU suggested that you were “brainwashed by feminism”. I would amend that to “suffering from feminized thought”.
Here’s why.
BACKGROUND: Elder says, “Truth is an UNSEEN quality that emanates from the MASCULINE principle. A lie is the lack of truth that develops in the absence of manliness. As our society becomes MORE FEMINIZED, which in reality means becoming LESS MASCULINE, truth gives way to lying.”
Summary: Masculine = focus on the unseen. Feminine = focus on the seen.
Elder is masculine, because he focuses on UNSEEN traits when characterizing people. Artfldgr is also masculine, because he focuses on the UNSEEN, but with much more energy and precision. (Artfldgr speaks of culture, faith, lack of a safety net, and paternal mentors as crucial elements to an inventive person. And ALL OF THESE are UNSEEN.)
Amfortas is not masculine, because amfortas focuses on the SEEN.
Two examples.
(1) I smell a mendacity as big as ‘women are superior communicators’. No. ‘Women are more empathetic’. Yep. That’s the one. Or is it ‘Men have no feelings’. Ahhh. Not a shred of empirical evidence of course. Just good old assertion, dressed in fine, persuasive phrases eagerly heard by tuned ears.
Do you see how YOU twisted the discussion from the unseen “masculine and feminine” to the SEEN “penises and vaginas”? No one forced you to do this. No one even asked you to. Heck, Elder and artfldgr never did! To them, gender matters, but it is unseen. To you, gender is plumbing. (Tot he feminists also, gender is plumbing)
(2) More pertinent to include would be that inventors themselves are exceptions. Most men do not invent. Most men do not think much at all. Some do.
Again, notice how your argument focuses on the SEEN, rather than the UNSEEN? I asked you, a long time ago, why you always focus on the FAILURES. This question was designed to expose your materialistic, feminized thought process. You believe that you are scoring points by driving the discussion AWAY from the UNSEEN forces which either help or hamper inventiveness, through forcing us to look at all of the MALE (not masculine, but MALE) failures.
But you’re not accomplishing anything. Instead, you’re dragging the argument away from its original point: that there are specific UNSEEN qualities which either encourage or inhibit invention.
And you’re doing this, because you think like a feminized person…by focusing only on the SEEN at the grand expense of the UNSEEN.
Compare your argument to artfldgr’s! If we followed your words, nothing could be said! But if we followed Artfldgr’s, we’d be able to make our children, whether boys or girls, much more inventive! When you focus on the UNSEEN, the way Artfldgr and Elder do, you get tremendous results! But when you focus on the SEEN, very little gets accomplished.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:44 am
thurston…all the truths that need to be told are here!!!This clearly is the most bold, and avante guard forum for mens rights there is!!!
you regress to emotional infantilism at the drop of a hat!!!
July 9th, 2007 at 10:40 am
This is all starting to become predictable
July 9th, 2007 at 10:18 am
thurston…why do you keep poisining these blogs??
July 9th, 2007 at 10:16 am
thurston….Its unfortunate that when you get passionate about a topic..you tend to revert back to youre default mode of attack others..
attacking others consitantly is simply counterproductive…and reflects undisciplined out of control emotionalism!!!
July 9th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Oops,
I apoligize for the mis-spelling of your name (had a Warhammer Tourney this weekend and that word comes from habit). Sorry.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Eldar,
I thoroughly enjoy reading your pieces as well as Joyanna’s. Both of you help to jumpstart my brain in the morning…(though it doesn’t take much). As for the WMD’s- About 2 years back I saw a Danish news piece showing 3 mapped locations in Syria where the WMD’s were moved. Strangely this never aired in the US MSM and has since evaded my internet searches. These locations were confirmed by an Iraqi officer citing that the weapons were moved during the build up of forces prior to invasion. Also during my 2 tours in that region I have see some very nasty stuff used by the Saddam regime (e.g. Mustard gas mines, Cyanide RPG rounds, Chemical artillery rounds). Wouldn’t these qualify as WMD’s or must they be of a larger scale. If the wind is right these would be incredibly effective in a crowded market, not that other methods haven’t. Anyway, don’t want to start rambling,
Thanks again for the pleasant reading material
July 9th, 2007 at 8:47 am
While i admire the truth, maybe more than the average man today, i also am forced to be honest. The reason women dont invent is that women do not get kudoes and increased fertility options for doing so. however this doesnt mean that women dont invent. today, given their need for structure and group think, they tend to invent within the bosom of some other enterprise. so the woman that invented kevlar, was working inside the bosom of a chemical company.
We invent based on our needs and since women tend to have many needs fulfilled by men, they SEEM to need less the ability to invent. however, lets imagine that there is a bottom line to COMMERCIAL invention. that bottom line would demark the ideas that are seen as commercially viable. most of womens inventions would fall below that line, as they are usually to solve imediate small problems that dont expand out. (like how to open a jar thats stuck and no one home. while the meme for doing such now is well known… its useful, but not commercially viable)
for the most part men are funny (a form of word or imagination invention) and invent (a show of unusual competence and je ne sais qua).. because it engendered her selection. however in the modern era woman have invented quite a bit… and are increasing this contribution every day (while men who are lone inventors are falling to the wayside as crackpots and prof potts running around in a fantasy, of course looking for trudy scrumptious)
one of the first that people bring up, is the first female millionaire, who was also black. madame cj walker, she experimented with home remedies till she had something that would work for women with a problem. she ended up marrying a man and thats where she got her name. she had a rough life was born into poverty, worked as a slave, and yet was able to see that fulfilling a need would lead to remuneration.
Having amassed a fortune in fifteen years, this pioneering businesswoman died at the age of 52. Her prescription for success was perseverance, hard work, faith in herself and in God, “honest business dealings” and of course, quality products. “There is no royal flower-strewn path to success,” she once observed. “And if there is, I have not found it – for if I have accomplished anything in life it is because I have been willing to work hard.”
the main difference was what the culture focused on… NOT whether she was mainly a woman, or a woman with a mans mind, or how you want to put it. the protestant work ethic was very strong then and people earned their playtime by working first (even today, on my vacation, i am typing this, as i have to earn my play). faith, is what she had…. and faith gets you to work through something that otherwise youy would give up on.
inventing is a horribly hard process and is fraught with many cheats. while looking at who has the patents one might think that this was a happy history. though one only needs examples, liek tesla, who had patents and didnt really get as far as those that stole his ideas and took credit (of which hedys idea was not one of)…
go read the history of armstrong and FM radio. armstrong invented this, and RCA, as they did with television proceeded to steel and crush him. one day, he put his coat and hat on. cleaned himself up right, opened the window, and walked out plummeting to hsi death. his wife continued teh fight and won.
so far i have lost 4 ideas.. two medical catheters went to a doctor whose brother was a billionaire.. he was a cardio vascular surgeon, and was cheating on his wife with my cousin who introduced us. as a lone inventor, i have no place to stand. there is no assistance for those who are not teenagers they wish to push, or adults who are already successful, and they donate to as a large carrot. he ended up head of cardio vascular of a famous hospital, and is still rolling in the money from my work. but if you look… you wont find my name anywhere… to be honest, a good proportion of ideas which started as simple tools and such used privately, became patents and products when OTHER people noticed them, and took them.
patents have to be protected by the owner, and so any person who makes one has to also have the money to go to court and fight against companies like sony. i make under 100k a year, sony makes upwards of near a billion a year. without dipping into the profit their lawyers can crush me, and there is absolutely no help available.
right now my chip design is going to be stolen. whether i am a male or a female (i am male), they are going to take it away from me when they didnt put all the years of work and stuff into it. sex does not enter this process, which is why its important not to look at it that way. most small ideas are stolen.
here is what this idea can do… you let me know if its “worth” anything. if you wanted to scan the genomes of the US population, and wanted to scan it for the presence or absence of 64,000 possible sequences 1024 characters long or less, and your PC ran at 50 gigahertz.. it would take a million of them close to 30,000 years to do the task. obviously i have anticipates the era that comes after digging through a few genomes to the extreme, and now have so much data that we cant even scan it.
the chip design, if running at the same 50 gigahertz (the pieces as discreets in a lab have been clocked at over .5 terahertz!!!!! (when under liquid hydrogen)), that same chip would be able to scan that same data in 1 to 2 years!!! if you had a million of them, it would take 1-2 seconds.
one would think that such a thing was worth something… but it isnt.. i cant afford to patent… and since i approached a researcher, and he is talking to the lawyers, and they are right now working to cut me out.
i will say that what many women lack is a method or infrastructure in which their ideas can be protected and not stolen. it is much more likely that an idea by a woman will be stolen as the art of protection is a whole industry in itself outside of the invention process.
like about a half dozen ideas i have had and worked on and did the hard work alone, i will end up as most women. you will not read my name with this idea, unless they are gracious enough to make my name the reward in exchange for the several BILLION dollars that they will make!!!!!!!!!!!!! I know that they will make that money, because the speed with wich you can search is directly correlated to the rate of productivity, and if it takes your nearest compettitor 30,000 or 300 years to do what you do in a month… how many sequences and such can you patent?
more than 20 years ago i started doing this. at about 18 years ago i went nuts with it. why? they took my family away. my ex faked her murder… disappeared, and played some crazy games (years later she was arrested with my son and her two kids and served a year and a half in club fed). the idea was that if i could make a few products with the investment i made in my mind for being a super geek (went to bronx science a year early), i could then afford to fly out and see him weekly. this though i had joint custody.
what you see there is impetus. and women do not invent as much because they have their impetus shorted out. welfare, dole, family help, support, and so on prevents the need from becoming so great that some larger thing has to be done.
madam cj walker didnt have that ‘convenience’ that damns. she was a slave… she was black… and she became the first female self made millionaire precisely because no one helped her. give a healthy child a crutch, you wont expect them to run years later if they grew up using it.
my grandmother is a great example. a chemist in the 30s, an escapee of the third occupation of latvia (russia, nazi, communists). she is credited with several discoveries. during a time when the feminists paint her as not being possible
though most dont realize that at the start of the baby boom, 46% of women went to college – it was the baby boom that depressed this number and made it appear as if they didnt. the following years was just them catching up to the place that they had before, and the feminists can only now be credite with pushing it past a point that is natural.
and here is where feminism fails them. feminism believes that making the trip easier, makes for more success… but making it easier makes for those that cant do, to be able to occupy a niche in whcih the squat! and those women who CAN do, are not able to occupy it. socialist women with a greater ability to work the group, like salesman men, get to use and keep others out.
the point being is that when women have the need, they will invent. but as long as others are filling their needs and they keep putting their trust in that, they will not invent at that level.
whats more is that the feminists have destroyed the engine that cranks this out!!!!!!!!!! that the MAJORITY of inventors, whether male OR female, came from families in which the culture was strong, and other items were strong, and that a father or mentor was present that guided them young which gives them a jumpstaart.
just read the tales of female engineers and a recurring story is that they became engineers precisely because they loved their fathers and they were inspired and helped by them… JUST as the male engineers tell similar stories… and i will say that the dearth of female inventors is a combination of all these fctors..
from needs fulfilled but not capitalized… to ideas that can be capitalized being stolen (as they are for men)… having cultural support, so that the necessity is less, and so they dont (as men wouldnt)… and gruop think, which forces them to sublimate their individual idea, to a group… like the kevlar inventor, and hedy.
while you have great ideas elder george, and a even more amazing tolerance for being commented on, your argument serves no purpose towards helping things. while it does attempt to get to some truth, it does not attempt to let that truth spring from a good understadning of whats going on, but does what it does trying to use the same faulty conclusive method that has us in this pickle in the first place.
to that i ask, what difference does it make? while it DOES make a difference that we may not crow as to the male inventor being responsible, it really has no difference of outcome. inventors invent regardless of what you put in front of them.
however, inventors may or may not patent and go from their, depending on what is in front of them and available. so you will see lots of girls as well as guys today attempting to invent and design… but as soon as they are in college or they step out of this santified method (in which ideas are sublimated to a greater group), they walk off a cliff. go to lemelsons area at MIT… they give money to high schools… they give money to nobel prize winners… in between, there is NOTHING.
as far as your comment as to put hedy to work.. thats not a fair assessment either and a game… most inventors are not a invention factory… most only have one or two ideas… and at that time, the government had a progrm tht they dont havfe now!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the government at that time was reviewing and looking at any ideas that people sent in!!!
there is absolutely nothing i can do to get my design out… i WILL lose it. if i was female or male it makes no difference, otehr names will be there. others will take the credit…
i would suppose that we will never know… how many husbands were not as honest as hedy’s husband, nor as appreciative. there was no reason for him to give her credit… in fact if he took it from her, you wouldnt have questioned it. you wouldnt have asked yourself.. maybe it was hedy.. but he didnt, she did, and you, like the others want to twist in around.. take it away..
maybe thats why there arent that many women inventors in the past.. for the same reason i wish i never invented a damn thing… cause it brings more grief and woe to the individual than it brings glory, and wealth and such!!!!!! why not check out how many patents lead to a product that makes money… its less than 1%…
women dont need to make that gamble in our society… and in the past they needed to make that gamble even less… because we love mothers for being mothers… we love men for providing.. if men refused to love women or mate with them till they prooved themselves in some grand way… i would bet that many women would then do what needs to be done… but she has a more sure thing in NOT doing it. she can not invent and isolate herself, and she can have a house, love, warmth, and respect.
like a teenager who has everything paid for and isnt pushed from the home, there is no reason to leave the nest. and so they dont. make a nice safe place of good enough living, and nothing gets done.
in our society.. i have no right to be with my son. i had no way to obtain that which was easy for SOME others… and so i resorted to what i had… which is nothing but my mind. i dont have great social skills, or salesmans skills. i dont have a stake. what i have is a well honed intelligence that others hire to make themselves rich.
and so the dream of the inventor is to make something out of nothing but that idea spark… adn the dream of everyone else is to deny that, so that they can get teh advantage and item for the lowest price. free.
the inventors you read about are those very very few who could sell their ideas for a low price, or had some resaouces to do it.
lemelson didnt make his items… and because of that, they are going to change patent law to prevent such inventors… his fault wasnt that he didnt build, is fault was that others wouldnt build or make if the ideas were not their own. or they could obtain them without paying.
microsoft and american express run a contest… most dont know.. its an inventor contest in whcih tehy give away a 10k prize. read the fine print and they OWN every entry, not just the winners… not only that, but in order to enter, you give away all rights to the idea.. you give away all future rights.. all dirivative rights. and just to make sure that the public doesnt know, you also agree to a binding gag order in which you no longer can even talk about the idea they stole this way!!!!
how many women write into THAT trusting that system? how many men?
and who gets all of it… whose names are on those patents? why the men of microsoft.
while i am not a woman firster or a man firster, i am all about truth…
and what you wrote isnt truth… its just another obfuscation of the truth…
and i will say the feminists have done more to keep women from inventing than they would have if the feminsits didnt dole things out!
got to go.. my wife wants breakfast… and so do i
love the ideas elder… i just grouse a lot
July 9th, 2007 at 8:32 am
Oh dear. It’s a good job that I don’t court popularity, given all your acolytes EG, but I really have to express my opposition.
Not to ‘the Point’ which I think is admirably constructed. Invented even. Reading your essay brought an image of a tree, mechanically stripped of its natural bark, turned on a huge, steam driven lathe in a sawdust-filled shanty in the woods into a sizable pole, hewn with muscular effort at one end with hatchets, and finished lovingly with a fine toothed rasp followed by a razor-sharp spoke-shave. A magnificent point indeed.
Great Picture, eh. I guess that means you will have to assert, once again, that I have abandoned being masculine, or I have been brainwashed (as if!) by feminism.
But EG, you are good at Assertion. Even with the carefully constructed, aye, invented, arguments cobbled together, conceptual and compelling, the initial assertions are stressed and restressed.
And the tenacity and the conviction and the sheer passion. I would love to sit with you EG and share a beer. You, personally, appear over this medium to be a great guy, one with whom a chap could have a really close friendship. I really like you. I admire a good mind, even a flawed one. And boy are we all flawed. I don’t seek perfection in people. So don’t take my criticism personally.
“Truth is an unseen quality that emanates from the masculine principle”.
Whoohoa there, Kimusabe. I smell a mendacity as big as ‘women are superior communicators’. No. ‘Women are more empathetic’. Yep. That’s the one. Or is it ‘Men have no feelings’. Ahhh. Not a shred of empirical evidence of course. Just good old assertion, dressed in fine, persuasive phrases eagerly heard by tuned ears.
And you title your essay, “Truth”.
Wow. Kim Gandy’s balls are smaller, that’s for sure. Just how one can build such a pointy edifice on such a mendacity requires a solid reading of Kant with a dessert of Descartes.
It gets no better.
“Getting back to Joyanna’s article, it had no proof of her contention at all”
And yours does, EG?
I think I made the point that Joyanna’s offering fell a little short of knocking your balls out of the park but your pitch is slow and ponderous and deserves a good whack.
Exceptions have their place of course, not simply there for dismissal, and yes, exceptions often do prove the rule, but to point to a silver-screen sex-symbol life choice over engineering is more than a bit iffy as an argument.
More pertinent to include would be that inventors themselves are exceptions. Most men do not invent. Most men do not think much at all. Some do. One can find quite a few brilliant ideas coming from the smart end of the distribution curve, but in the main, most guys are drone-like slaves to the systems and conceptions of others. Should the ‘Point’ not be that creativity, invention, conceptualisation are functions of intellect and intelligence moreso than gender?
Hey, I made that point before. I don’t assert it, though. I ask. I suggest. I don’t know for certain.
I don’t know the mind or orientation of God either (from wence truth emanates) and whether he is predominantly masculine in character or feminine. He gestates damned well though. I do have a view, challengable and open to change, that Truth is a direct expression of God, rather than a subsidiary expression of an invented- for-purpose aspect like masculinity.
Maybe that’s your attraction to so many folk, EG. Your Certainty. Kim Gandy is damned certain too.
She gathers acolytes around her, as well. Golly, she even gets Government grants. I don’t see Joyanna sitting at her feet though. Maybe its a sense of humour thing. (Oops, someone took a swing at that one). Struck out though.
You strike out too EG. You did with your first sentence and the home runs evade you.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:21 am
To brmerrick,
You are apparently new to MND or at least as one who comments to my articles. In behalf of the others I welcome your support and then your involvement. I look forward to you contacting me through mywebsite.
I like your succinct description of our political parties; there is little difference between them and neither one has a message. The whole system is in the processs of collapse.
More on that at another time.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Thank you, Mr. George, for tying in the lie about WMD (along with all the other lies of this administration) with our increasingly feminized society. It is comforting to know that there are more manly, objective thinkers at this website who understand that the Leviathan- composed of two socialist-yet-differentiated political parties, and as the co-creator of forced government schooling and mass consumption- routinely lies. Men are waking up to this, and perhaps someday soon, as evidenced by your aritcle, we will see a rebirth of love of liberty in this country. As with all other important events of history, it will be men at the forefront of this rebirth. I hope all your future articles are as lucid.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:34 am
conserve…AMEN brother..
Out of all the fascinateing, enlightening rhetoric I’ve witnessed on MND..you top the ranks bro….
July 9th, 2007 at 7:12 am
Somewhere along this path of iron and lace attempting to sharpen one another, as the “points” get bigger and bigger, maybe as a last ditch effort someone can run through some basic tutorial in logic. It makes interesting reading, and for the benefit of some men who are not respecters of logic, it could be useful. If these assertion have merit in this then surely some men will come around.
I do not claim to be a Vulcan folks, I dwell in occasional fallacious reasoning like most, but I am willing, once someone exposes it, to see fallacy as fallacy.
There has been much time spent on exceptions to generalities. EG has done a nice job of bringing the statistical reality to the fore in this piece, and please, the numbers are for illustration (this to avoid someone doing a massive query into patent numbers, birth rates, etc. to PROVE his billions are incorrect).
One of the problems I see and it ties well with truth, is the difference between the objective and subjective. I would say we are all guilty of inappropriate subjectivity, but I’d offer that subjectivity tends towards the feminine and objectivity to the masculine. And that has everything to do with how one pursues or even sees the truth.
Politics offer a handy example. Would anyone disagree that liberal politics tend to be feminized and conservative politics tend to be less feminized (It would be nice to be able to say masculine but I cannot)? One reason is subjectivity. Liberals, like for example tom of covenant garden wear subjectivity on their sleeves. They say things like “we drive to much”, “we eat too much meat”, and whatever the case may be. Well who is to decide how much is too much? The subjective seeks to form an objective standard, and that creates havoc. For me at least, that describes much inter-gender discourse. In the home or elsewhere, while men and women disagree on how and what to do, IN GENERAL there will be a man standing as best he can on objective standards and a woman disarming him with emotional arguments (subjective). The objective is a point, the subjective is a picture.
Disclaimer: I did not say women cannot be objective or men subjective…therefore any comments about exceptions are a waste of time.
I dislike the term “’objective truth”, because it weakens the innate strength of the word truth. It needs no qualifier.
A lesson in logic, some basic statistics and probability explanations, and then an exposition on subjective vs. objective, if received with open minds, can seriously help folks seek truth.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:11 am
E.G. is man enough to say what needs to be said, and is unconcerned with popular hysteria!!!
E.G. you can use this quote for youre next book!!!
July 9th, 2007 at 6:32 am
Hussein used gas to kill some 10000 Kurds. Just because he got most of those weapons out before our invasion doesn’t mean he didn’t have them.
Other than that, this is a wonderfully sound and well thought out piece. This, on a morning when sound, sane and sober thought seem to be missing elsewhere.
I also agree with your point that men move society forward and women stop it from falling apart. We’d be in a mess without them and, much to their surprise, they’d be in a mess without us. But, it’s the whole left-wing thought process: Even if we change everything around everyone will still be just as productive and just as much wealth will be produced.
So, prepare to be burried with hysterics. Or, the worst fate of all, silence. ((queue the music) dum dum dah!)