GirlChat #737310

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

I'll consilidate my reply to both your posts here

Posted by girlzRprettiest on Monday, December 28 2020 at 06:01:02AM
In reply to Longer reply: posted by Hajduk on Thursday, December 24 2020 at 8:53:04PM

I'm the right wing of GC.

It is incredible that such a thing even exists. Right-wingers are the bane of every group and society in which they infest (indeed, of humanity at large). In my honest-to-God, genuine opinion (meaning that I do not mean this as a mere slight), given that you are doing a grand disservice to the overall movement you should probably be shamed right out of here.

"Society" is made up of individuals.

What is your point? It seems like you are implying that organized, complex, dialectical systems cannot possibly exist, simply because they comprise distinct, separate elements. Again, not only is this position (derived from a crude atomistic philosophy) wholly unscientific, but it is also clearly fallacious.

Individual parents have told me they want me in their children's lives. I probably will never be out in the sense Todd is, but I have girls in my life and that's enough for me. I'm as out as I need to be and the response has been mostly positive because people know me as a person. I haven't come out per se, but I'm DADT. And that's good enough for me.

Notice how, just like with Thatcher, your worldview is merely a reflection of your social position. That is, rather than appealing to objective science, you merely rely on your subjective experience. Such idealism is quintessential postmodernist claptrap.

Also, your apparent implication that you would not prefer the liberty of being completely open about your pedophilia, without having the constant nagging concern in the back of your mind that your activities are extremely illegal and could result in imprisonment (or even death), is a brazen lie. Obviously, every one of us here would immensely favor the total abolition of the anti-pedophilia stigma over the current status quo.

Incidentally, have you even considered your future options once your little girlfriends age beyond your age of attraction? What if they inadvertently apprise an unsympathetic friend or family member of your activities, leading them to alert the authorities? Frankly, I kind of hope that happens, mostly for the sake of the overall movement. Individuals whose privilege fosters this sort of complacency, while promulgating conservative ideas deleterious to progressive movements and the oppressed victims for which they advocate, are some of the most vile actors imaginable, IMO. You should do everything you can to help your fellow pedos out, not just "Fuck you, I got mine!" them. At the very least, you ought to keep your mouth shut about these matters.

She was appointed Baroness. She didn't inherit the title.

This is a red herring fallacy. It has nothing to do with whether she represents an elite class at the expense of the masses. Certainly, it does not negate your foolishness in parroting her views.

Why do you think this bitch was appointed Baroness, anyway, a move that requires the Queen's approval?

That's an ad her....You're not really refuting any of her positions; just stating that you wouldn't listen to her because of her social status.

First of all, in proper logical format, the ad hominem fallacy is expressed like so: "Since X claimed Y, Y is false." Simply noting that Thatcher's view reflects her class interests not only is not an argument, but also contains no proposition as to the falsity of some claim. In any case, I have not even argued elsewhere that her status necessarily means her views are false.

Keep in mind that, while ad hominems are fallacious in the deductive sense, inductively speaking this is not necessarily so. Indeed, in certain cases, such as when a claimant's credibility is called into question, ad hominems are a perfectly valid debate tactic; these are called "fair use" ad hominems.

Secondly, in the body of my post I did in fact directly address and refute her position, notwithstanding that this refutation was not contained in the brief sentence fragment you quoted. It is interesting how your atomistic tendencies are reflected not only in your worldview, but also your approach to debate. It appears you are unable to consider things as a whole, instead focusing individually on minute components. As the late sociologist Allan G. Johnson would have put it, you cannot help but "miss the forest for the trees."

Lastly, I never suggested that I "wouldn't listen to her" simply because of her status. This is a strawman fallacy. Instead, I am drawing attention to the fact that, considering her particular personage and the destructive effects of her official political acts on the British masses, she has an utter lack of credibility when it comes to sociological discussions specifically. (Remember, this is not a fallacious ad hominem.)

It's an ad hominem to me because you're assuming things about me. In all honesty, I'm not upper social class either

Your first statement is false. That is not nearly what an ad hominem fallacy is. Actually, given that my assumption about you was correct, it strongly supports my remark about your foolishness here.

I don't have "class" interests.

Such a comment can only come from a politically and scientifically uneducated mind. Consider that literally thousands of studies have demonstrated that both physiological and psychological health outcomes are strongly predicted by socioeconomic status (SES) (a phenomenon called the "SES-health gradient"). Since quality of life is determined by one's position in the socioeconomic hierarchy, this means that all people have objective class interests (whether they realize it or agree, or not). Thatcher's class interests, which entail the preservation of the socioeconomic inequalities that she benefited from, are objectively hostile to yours.

I listen to her arguments, not her status.

Once again, you demonstrate your simplistic, atomistic bias, as though the two cannot be considered together as a whole.

I could turn that question around too. I have many friends (including girls and girls' families) who are lower class -- and I care what they think not because I am in the same social group, but because they have a right to their ideas and many times they've been enriching to me.

In ignoring the context of my quoted statement, you are yet again betraying your atomistic bias. I did not simply ask, "Generally speaking, on any and all topics, why would you care what Thatcher thinks?" Rather, I specifically asked why, considering that her views regarding society reflect her class interests (which are objectively hostile to yours), would you pay these views any mind? This is akin to a slave saying, "Well my master says our relative statuses are not only natural and immutable, but actually for my own good, and I believe him because he said so!" If this is not the epitome of foolishness, I do not know what is.

I enrolled in a second degree on Theology

Figures, with your subjective idealist, postmodernist, anti-truth worldview, you would take an interest in theology.

All decisions are individual. This doesn't deny that there are exogenous factors which influence them and push us in certain directions. But ultimately every person chooses for themselves.

This idea of "exogenous" factors merely "influencing" psychology in a simple, immediate, temporally causative fashion is highly ignorant. To be sure, as evidenced by Aristotle's formulation of four distinct types of causes, phenomena (especially cultural-psychological traits) are exceedingly more complex than this. Culture is not a mere "exogenous influence" on psychology. Rather, as I stated, psychology, being fundamentally and thoroughly cultural, functions to support cultural systems, as integral elements of these systems. Culture is therefore a final cause, in the Aristotelian sense, of psychology; psychology's telos and raison d'être are to bolster cultural systems. This is similar to how the telos of a woodpecker's beak is to bore holes into trees; yet, we would not say trees are an immediately preceding, temporal cause of their beaks.

Incidentally, in light of this it is easy to see why our capacity to organize complex societies, which are vital to the species' survival, evolved. Without individual human psychology evolving as a means to support our collective survival, our species (whose physical constitution is relatively fragile, vulnerable to most environments, and unequipped with anatomical features adapted to specific purposes in particular biomes) would have long gone extinct.

Anyway, again, your hyperindividualistic, atomistic reductionism here is unscientific and fallacious. It is unclear what purpose you see in simply repeating yourself.

As a pedo, for instance, I can choose to break the law by contact or KP, or not to. Even in the case of contact, I can choose whether I engage in rape or seek it to be consensual. The existence of those laws leads to certain incentives instead of other incentives; but the decisions are always mine.

This is merely an elaboration of your reductionistic atomism, which is fundamentally flawed; further exposition here cannot correct these fundamental errors.

Moreover, you are merely describing a very simple decision-making process resultant of operant conditioning. In actuality, the vast majority of human psychology is not reducible to mere aversions to unpleasant consequences. (Your support of Thatcherism and conservatism in general, which is far more complex and functions to bolster your own socioeconomic oppression, is a case in point.) Your elaboration here is therefore an overgeneralization fallacy.

It isn't simplistic. It's just a different sort of worldview compared to others. In some ways to collectivize explanations for acts is more simplistic than to consider individuals independently from one another.

This statement contains a non sequitur fallacy, as well as a red herring. Firstly, just because Thatcher's take is "different" (a completely meaningless descriptor, mind you) does not mean it is unsimplistic. Second, even if it is true that systemic analyses are "in some ways" more simplistic than reductionistic ones, this is irrelevant to whether my particular systemic view is overall such a relatively simplistic analysis.

Please elaborate on these certain ways that systemic analyses are "simplistic," let alone vis-à-vis their reductionistic counterparts.

How so? Again we are a great example. Not all pedos break the laws against contact or KP; but not all pedos follow them either. Being a pedo is not what determines that.

I have thoroughly explicated on how, both in my previous post and this one.

Also, say what? How on Earth do you figure that pedophilia's lack of a deterministic role in the engagement in related illegal activities (adult-child sexual interactions, consumption of child porn) somehow negates the scientific evidence supporting the systemic (as opposed to reductionistic) paradigm?

it is personal acts which drive them. It isn't "societies" which create outcomes, but individuals in them.

False again. This is a complete inversion of the reality. Once more, human psychology's telos is to support the cultural systems that are vital to the species' survival. In other words, personal acts are driven (nay, generated) by culture, for culture.

It was one crazy guy eating bat soup who created the world's worst crisis in over 3000 years; not a thousand, one million, or one billion.

This is such an unbelievably stupid statement, again betraying your pathetic atomistic mindset. While one dumbfuck may have initiated the COVID pandemic, its consequent flourishing in Western countries to the current, profoundly deadly levels is due to capitalist rulers' refusal to implement crucial preventative measures (namely, the total lockdown of nonessential workplaces and schools in concert with reasonable financial provisions for workers throughout the pandemic's duration) with the express purpose of extracting as much wealth as possible from the masses. Basically, the pandemic, as it has manifested today, is attributable to systemic factors (capitalism).

Your shitty, simplistic assessment here is a textbook fallacy of the single cause (causal reductionism).

I never mentioned that. For the record, I believe that biology matters more than we're usually willing to admit, especially in modern Western societies where we emphasize equality as a value. Of course, that doesn't mean that biology can be used as a metanarrative to explain everything.

You did not have to mention it. Just like I knew you are not from a high-SES background, given your politics it was plainly obvious to me that you buy into bioderminism, which is inherently conservative. Notice how I also noted that "souls" likewise do not explain differential life outcomes; this was due to my (now-confirmed) suspicion that you are some kind of religious nut. That is 3/3 for me. Regardless of what you may think of me, I am not an idiot.

Anyway, contrary to what you say, biology actually matters far, far less than what even mainstream psychology maintains (the "genetic predisposition" hypothesis). To be sure, there is no reliable scientific evidence that specific psychological outcomes are generated (or even "influenced") by a particular, consistent set of genes in all people. Again, the available evidence shows that psychology's specific features are derived from social, cultural, political, and economic factors. This holds true across virtually all psychological traits, including motivation, color perception, emotion, self-concept, sexuality, psychological disturbance, etc.

Further, you shamelessly hijacked this "metanarrative" term straight from postmodernist orthodoxy. Do I really need to explain to you why postmodernism, which rejects the idea of objective truth, is bullshit?

Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)

Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?