Where have I supported it? I hate to be obtuse but do read the thread.

I posted the article to draw attention to the fact that it had been shared and viewed by what I felt was a surprisingly large number of people, and that I found that to be indicative of an interesting social phenomenon worth discussing.

The response was initially to say that half a million people wasn't a large number and besides which, they were probably all just sharing it on their Facebooks to laugh at it.

When I pointed out that this couldn't be the case and that such a claim was self-evidently silly, people resorted to the lol-virgin-nerd-loser shaming tactic not just against the article or the people in agreement, but against me for pointing out their existence, and did so with such vitriol that I'm really quite fascinated by that kind of mentality.

This is the trouble, you're all so emotionally obsessed with somehow 'outing' me as the closeted sexist that you'd love me to be that you're now trying to debate with me as if I'm on the side of the article.

I wasn't and I'm not. From the word go I was hoping that I'd hear some well-constructed arguments against it.

Not actively sought it. I understand some people had tough childhoods. I mean I didn't have the best and at 20 I was a fat awkward nerd in my moms basement too. Just like there's lots of women hating crap on the Internet there's also lots of self improvement material as well as stuff on losing weight/weight lifting or improving physical appearance. Anyone who isn't physically deformed or a midget can be at least average looking with the proper work. I guess the difference was when I wasn't getting laid because I was 80 lbs overweight with acne playing wow all day, I didn't blame society or women. I blamed myself. So I can't really relate to people who don't care about their physical appearance and do a whole bunch of socially unacceptable stuff but then blame others for their lack of acceptance and success.

As for the last paragraph it's certainly not helping. Imagine if one of these guys sent out this article in a work email saying how great it was and how much he agreed with it. Would that not make him an outcast amongst his colleagues? Or is your argument they become misogynists after years of women not being interested in them?

Rast, did you miss my request for you to post a paragraph you agreed with and found well written?

I'm trying to have this debate with you.

Well even if you don't support the article you posted it and are arguing devil's advocate for some of its beliefs ITT. So for all intents and purposes you're being addressed as a supporter of the article, even if you are just arguing in theory in support of it.

Also, no a half million is not a lot at all. When I played WoW it had like 10 million subscribers. It wouldn't be unreasonable to think 5% of them supported this article and that's only one video game where the majority of players are socially awkward. So 500k is nothing

The funny thing is that it would, even at this stage, be completely and utterly consistent if I were to do a 'tah-dah' reveal and say that I'm actually completely in disagreement with the article and purely examining the reactions to it!

I've been posting from it in order to try and generate a well-thought out response because I'm curious about the debate and want to hear the other side; the problem is that people just flat-out disbelieve me on this claim.

But Ok; here's an extract which does present a few questions.

"Men, driven, as many of them like to say, by fact and not emotion, can see that society is not fair to them and more dangerous for them. They point to the fact that they are more likely to be murder victims and more likely to commit suicide. Women do not choose to serve in the Armed Forces and they experience fewer deaths and injuries in the line of work generally.

Women get shorter custodial sentences for the same crimes. There are more scholarships available to them in college. They receive better and cheaper healthcare, and can pick from favourable insurance packages available only to girls. When it comes to children, women are presumed to be the primary caregiver and given preferential treatment by the courts. They have more, better contraceptive options.

Women are less likely to be homeless, unemployed or to abuse drugs than men. They are less likely to be depressed or to suffer from mental illness. There is less pressure on them to achieve financial success. They are less likely to live in poverty. They are given priority by emergency and medical services.

Some might call these statistical trends "female privilege." Yet everywhere and at all times, say men's rights advocates, the "lived experiences" and perceived oppression of women is given a hundred per cent of the airtime, in defiance of the reality that women haven't just achieved parity with men but have overtaken them in almost every conceivable respect."

My lunch break is drawing to a close, so perhaps, if you'd care to, you'd perhaps write a few words arguing against that little lot.

^ There you go mate.

As I've said, I'm not sure I agree with it! But it does give me pause for thought.

Thank you for your time.

Women aren't about looks for regular contact. They are about what's inside your head. Would you rather be ugly or a creep ? Which one of those would be the easiest to overcome iyo ? Good for you that you changed that around but unfortunately we're not that keen on people with psychological issue's in this society. Guess what happens with a lot of those guys.

Bold seems very obvious. Do most girls just choose not to trust guys or would that be something that could be heavily influenced by your past ?

He has literally posted several times ITT that he didn't support the article itself but was interested in what a demographic as 2+2 would say about it. It was even in the original OP.

still excitedly waiting for a source on this "paternity test ban" that isn't either selling dna kits, or from a well-known hate site.

And if that is all true (which it isn't, I haven't even argued for it as devil's advocate), then how does me being a virgin-loser-rapist-gamer-nerd-whatever find flaw with any of the article's claims?

I'm not saying that the article isn't flawed, I'm not even upset by the ad-hominem attacks against my anonymous internet persona. I'm just bored by them, and curious as to how badly people have struggled to simply refute the article point-by-point.

Because when you try to defend something, while conceding most points against it and not advancing any points of your own in favour - there's obviously something you're not sharing.

Do you believe the evidence presented is a good way of judging the fairness of society? What about equal pay? Being in positions of authority? Being victims of sexual assault/rape? And so on. The bolded is just absurd.

Source?

Source?

Lol at better contraceptive options. Men are the clear winners when it comes to contraceptives and sex in general.

Source?

Source?

Except for all of those respects already mentioned.


Edit: I wouldn't be surprised if 1-2 of the claims I bolded/requested a source for are actually true. But the point is that the argument is clearly using a large number of assertions with little basis in fact and ignores many other issues.

Like I say, my lunch break is drawing to a close so I can't investigate that claim thoroughly, but like I say, no evidence has been posted against it so far either. I'm certainly willing to suspend judgement however, but the fact that you took the claim that its designed to 'protect children' as consisting of a genuine counter-point does leave me sceptical of your ability to understand what constitutes a genuine refutation.

Perhaps you could prove me wrong, and set a good example by rebutting the paragraph I've c+p'd at the bottom of page 12, similar to the manner JJShabado has very kindly offered to do.

Why would anyone refute the article point by point? If you published a 10 page article about how pigs could fly all you need to do is read the first paragraph and laugh at it.

Some people have already pointed out that the article claiming the majority of men that have kids are not the actual father is objectively wrong. Most of the article is just ******ed opinions on women that no amount of arguing would help. The rest is made up un-cited statistics. This reminds me of GamerGate.

What kind of evidence would that be ? "Confirmed, paternity test allowed in france!" ? I have no clue on the details of this argument but a specific claim like that could easily be researched in a few minutes. Hint, if you cant find anything, its probably not true.

First, yes, I did post evidence. I linked to the specific law in question. It does not say what you claim it says.

Second:

You probably shouldn't diss on other people's ability to understand things right in the middle of making **** up out of the blue. I've never said anything about "protecting children," so you can walk that back any time.

And finally, a google search takes literally less than one second. If you don't have that kind of time before your lunch break ends, you need better time management skills.

Rastamouse

Give it up. This article is a steaming pile of dung making outrageous claims with no source facts or actual hard data.

Written by a frustrated man for frustrated men so they can koombaya together and say "YEA SO RIGHT" and feel better about being a male.

Yeah, society so rigged against men. Maybe someday we'll see a male president or CEO though. LMFAO.

Are there laws preventing women becoming Presidents or CEOs?

Whilst the very highest, top 0.01% tier of society may still be overrepresented with men (although no evidence has been presented that this is down to anything other than people's choices rather than any such nefarious reason), the base of the pyramid, if you will, is still overwhelmingly overpopulated by men; manual labourers, truckers, maintenance and utility workers etc.

This is part of the reason that around 92% of workplace injuries and death are suffered by men.

Lol. Milo Yiannopoulos is a 30-year old graduate from one of the finest universities in the world, has founded his own media outlet and has featured on 'Top 100' lists of people in tech/start-ups.

Oh, and of course, he's gay.

Now sit in the corner and think about how silly you've been.

JFC rasta.

Second thread now, where you moan about how you can't get laid.

Nobody wants to 'silence the debate' or whatever you're on about.

Quoting a comment in Cracked, that's where I had to stop.

It's true. Nobody gives a **** whether you get laid or not.

I gave some advice in your 'gameless' thread. Others did too. Henry gave you advice basically opposite of mine.

You haven't tried any of it.

It's clear you'd rather sit around and construct a model in your head, that can rationalize your fear of women.

That's cool.

But nobody gives a **** about the issue, but you.

Is that strawman?

But of course, no one would respond with quite the same passion and anger that they have done here now would they?

People have responded by vehemently shouting that:

1) No-one was actually reading the article and that it wasn't as popular as it first appeared.

2) That even if that wasn't true, anyone reading or sharing it was only doing so to laugh at it anyway.

3) That even if that wasn't true, its ideas were so stupid as to not merit any discussion anyway.

4) That even if that wasn't true, anyone who was still curious to persist with a discussion must therefore sympathise with all of the article and secretly be the worst stereotype of someone who does.

...all carried out of course whilst feigning indifference.

Look, the people who've responded obviously aren't chuckling and rolling their eyes as they claim to be, they obviously have a dog in the hunt so to speak and are prepared to put time and effort into discrediting the article, even if mockery, rather than evidence, is all that they have.

I'm not a troll. I don't 'win' anything by you admitting your righteously angry. Sometimes being angry is indeed, the righteous thing to do in the face of a grotesque injustice.

If people were just honest about the article and its following and began their response with "This is disgraceful and propagating a culture against women blablabla...." I'd honestly have a more fulfilling discussion with them, as at least they'd be being honest.

Arguing with Rastamouse is an exercise in futility. If you've read the shy/gameless thread you know that Rastamouse has serious mental problems -- mainly a lack of confidence and low self-esteem -- and has a deluded perception of the thoughts and motives of women. He absolutely needs therapy but when it was suggested in that thread he was vehemently against the idea.

Example please?

In the previous thread I made it clear that I've had no issues finding willing sexual partners, even some really quite attractive ones, but suffer from ED, nervousness and anxiety.

I haven't blamed women once for my problems, although I wasn't happy with the fact that one woman in particular ran around to tell her friends about my nervousness and anxiety who of course had no qualms about making fun of me behind my back and on one occasion, to my face, especially when teh girl in question herself posted Facebook articles criticising men who shared intimate details of their lives with their fellow men. Such behaviour was objectively hypocritical.

Similarly, in the UK, more than 3 million women have downloaded an app called LuLu, where women are able to objectify men that they sleep with based on their sexual performance (and up until a recently change in the law, regardless of their consent). Heard of it at all? No? That's kind of the point, if it the genders were reversed the feminist crowd would be up in arms.

We live in a society which, whilst it serves the very top 20% of people well enough and the top 0.01% (within which I will readily admit men are very overrepresented), is built on the objectification, subordination and disposability of the bottom 40% of men.

I don't blame 'women' in general for this per se, but I do point it out as a flaw in our culture.

Rast, you seem to be back to posting and yet you've skipped over my post. Don't you want to have this debate?

As far as the article being noteworthy because it has a bunch of shares and likes and comments or whatever:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukelewis/no...hunt-dinosaurs
This picture:

With the caption:
“Disgraceful photo of recreational hunter happily posing next to a triceratops he just slaughtered. Please share so the world can name and shame this despicable man.”


So far, the image has had 30,000 shares

With comments such as:
Steven Spielberg, I’m disappointed in you. I’m not watching any of your movies again ANIMAL KILLER.

Disgraceful. No wonder dinosaurs became extinct. Sickos like this kill every last one of them as soon as they are discovered. He should be in prison.



The point is: There are lots of really dumb people on the internet, along with a lot of trolls.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukelewis/no...hunt-dinosaurs

Even if this is true, it doesn't flaw a basic, logical chain of "If A, then B, If B then C. A is true, therefore C is true".

Could you perhaps flesh out what you think those perceptions are?

Could you perhaps give me a breakdown of what you think that I think?

You're welcome to be as insulting as you like on this one, it would simply help me understand how big a gap we have in our understanding here.