You can kill a man before he even moves by hitting him in a pressure point, and it does not require much force either, surely a woman has enough to do so. That’s your argument, not being in range?
Except chromosomes are taken from both male and female, right, and they only hold the child for 9 months and deal with the pain, right? Your mother should have never carried you, she should have flushed you away like a virus. With those views you’re pretty much a plague on an already garbage society. “Men are superior to women” and all, which hardly is the case.
Nonsense. Although pressure points are vulnerable areas, force is still needed to cause damage and it’s rarely fatal. You watch too many martial arts movies.
You hit someone in the temporal lobe, you can knock them out or kill them. There is nothing martial arts about it. It doesn’t require much force, not as much as hitting them in the face constantly while trying to get away.
They work better with force, but don’t require it. Particularly when you are using grip/hook techniques, not punches.
Give this one a try, for example. Skip to half way. youtube.com/watch?v=xnTegs3Z8Bc
You can knock him out if you hit with enough force. Which is about one third the force which would be required to get a knockout by hitting other areas. However, most likely you will miss or you won’t hit hard enough.
It can be summed up this way :
Size is a significant advantage in all respects - muscle, height, reach, bulk.
If fighting a larger person is necessary, it is better to attack the pressure points than other areas.
A knowledge of pressure points does not put you on an equal footing with a larger opponent. Training, in techniques, is essential to reducing your disadvantage.
Okay, this may be the case for many people. My follow-up question, however, is naturally if those things are worthy of his love. Is he a continuation of something great? Is it really knowledge that is transmitted, or merely a Weltanschauung? Isn’t his culture greater when set on fire?
Of course, it’s a flaw in my argument. You are the paragon of logic. Can you then please formulate my reasoning and your conclusion from it in the form of a syllogism? That should make it clear where the flaw lies.
You’re still ignoring what I’ve said about deception. Look, doesn’t feminism criticise “patriarchy” precisely inasmuch as the latter is counter or limiting to nature, the nature of woman? All nature is counter or limiting to nature, and all nature is hatred of nature in this sense. Feminism’s mendacity or naivety is precisely in its idea that it is itself exempt from its own criticism. This is its means to power, and insofar as this is seen through, it cannot be effective.
I think we can. They then hate nature because it has given the ability to dominate the world for about 5000 years to people who could freely choose to do so.
I disagree with both. If there is no free agency, and men domineer over the world, then apparently this is natural. And one doesn’t have to resent something because it is X in order to resent something that is X.
If they decide what god is their highest good, that’s a positive morality. They are then at best doing the same those men did, namely posit a law, impose an order, because they can. And if their morality is a natural or divine morality, they either hate nature or God for endowing men with such power, or they believe nature or God also endowed them with the revelation of its right use. So feminism has to appeal to natural or divine right. But then feminists must still either hate the fact that nature or God did not make men always respect that right–namely, if they don’t believe in free agency–, or they must hate the fact that nature or God gave men the ability to freely choose not to respect it.
Then presumably any opposition to feminism wouldn’t really be because of its opposition to nature.
If all humanity, here taking the example of woman, strives for power (lets say to be free of restraint and to seek and obtain the good) then feminism is means to that power (which it is natural to seek) which employs deception to obtain it, namely positing ‘a moral shortcoming on men for repression’, which is just an expression of their nature, and not something against a “nature” which would be defined by “morality”.
Would you have the same issue with a “feminism” that states only the desire for the power to seek and obtain the good, and in the name of such opposes any limitation on that power?
If, as you say “All nature is counter or limiting to nature, and all nature is hatred of nature in this sense.” the issue taken with feminism, or any other method to the obtainment of power, could not be its opposition to nature, because in opposing this aspect of nature (here, namely, the power of men) it is only acting naturally for the sake of its own power, so to oppose that striving would itself be opposition to nature (the nature of the will to power), and wouldn’t opposing it on those grounds be itself a deception?
So it leads me to think the issue with feminism cannot be its opposition to nature, but instead just one tactic to justify a particular will to power.
I think this is well worth taking up, though I think it would move the conversation off track from the stated subject of the thread.
Nature, natural - You could define it as : That which arises without conscious intent.
But since humans are conscious beings there is no way to determine what is natural or unnatural for humans. We are always consciously manipulating our environment.
Humans are conscious, but our consciousness rests on a foundation of drives and instinct. We cannot pin point exactly from where our conscious choices and desires arise, except from our natures (our nature to desire, for example) and our position within (and as part of) the natural world.
You can’t just arbitrarily trace the blame back to whatever source you want. That would be like saying that if I hate so-and-so, then I must hate so-and-so’s grandparents for bringing about the possibility of his birth. Letting the buck stop at free choice is a perfect place to drop the blame because it squares nicely with the fact that anything that came before that is morally neutral as far as the choice is concerned. If feminists hate nature for making it merely possible that men could use their brute strength to dominate over women, then they must also hate nature for making it possible (because it was possible) for men to user their strength to serve and protect women and their children. When you blame someone for making a particular choice, you are not in the same stroke blaming them for every possible choice they could have made in virtue of having some trait or ability.
Kind of like how Oedipus married Jocasta without even knowing it? You could say that, but there are still many objections I could raise. For instance, I hate caramel flavored popcorn. Caramel flavored popcorn is part of the universe. Therefore, I hate the universe. ← Does that make sense?
You’ve got a lot of “musts” and “has tos” in there. Do you see what you’re doing here? You’re stringing together a logical thread in your own mind and imposing it on feminists’ thinking.
This is about as bad as feminists calling men misogynists every time they do something they don’t like, including (for example) chivalry. If I like to hold the door open for women on dates, feminists will call me misogynist–which means I hate women. How the hell does one connect holding doors open for women with hatred for women? Good question. The answer is they do the same thing exactly as what you’re doing. Drawing a long line of arguments together in order to form the connection, in their own mind, then imposing it on me. They’ll say: Holding doors open for women is an example of chivalry, and chivalry is a tradition borne out of a patriarchal society, the purpose of which is to keep women down–by holding the door open for them, by pulling out the chair, by taking their coat off and hanging it up, men are implicitly sending out the message: you are little more than children–incapable, inferior–and we men must bear the burden of taking care of you. Thus, it reinforces an imagine of inferior/superior between men and women, and so any man who willingly acts chivalrous is contributing to this image and therefore means to do more harm to women than good. Therefore, he cannot possibly like women–no way, holding the door open? Are you kidding? That’s a clear sign of bitter and deep seeded hatred (he probably wants to beat her and leave her to die in an alley). He must be, he has to be, a misogynist.
Well, ok, you go girl, you string that line of logic all the way through to your bitter conclusions–you have not come one iota within range of what I really think and feel when I hold the door open for women. The only facts here are: 1) I held the door open for a woman on a date, and 2) I like her! Those are facts, not quasi-logical deductions that one has to figure out and then impose onto the world. If some feminist can’t make heads or tails of it, to bad for her–the facts aren’t going to change to suit her thinking.
There’s tons of feminists who hate men for using their strength to dominate over women for almost the entire age of civilization, but only you can string together the connection between that and a hatred of nature, and you do it in your mind–as for the facts about whether feminists hate nature or not, you’re thinking it so doesn’t make it so.
No, not the same issue. However, if that power is then claimed as a “right”, the argument must be raised that, as we do not possess knowledge of the good, the best thing until we do is to seek it. For in the absence of that argument, the said claim is just that, a mere or mad claim.
Indeed.
Correct. If feminism is (driven by) hatred of nature, that is not in itself my problem with it. My problem with it is then that feminism is also driven by it. For it is then no better than what it opposes, to which it presents itself as morally superior.
Yes, I just wanted to make it clear that I’m not a mere skeptic.
