Apr 062013

Looking Glass commeting at Dalrock’s has noticed a new argument category similar to the “No True Scotsman” fallacy:

S1AL has created a new argument category.

There’s the “No True Scotsman” argument we all know about. His corollary is the “UMC Amish as TradCon”. There are very small, very cloistered groups like that, but good luck finding them. There are good churches out there, but there aren’t a lot of them. You aren’t going to get many takers to talking about the “Church” when you’re speaking from an ultra-thin minority.

UMC = upper middle class.

This is definitely a corollary to the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.  I’m not even sure that “UMC Amish” churches exist, but even if they do they are so small and so few as to be almost impossible to find.  Even if you found one, they probably wouldn’t let you in since you weren’t born into their church.

  9 Responses to “A New Argument Category”

  1. PMAFT,
    Don’t listen, just look around, and refine your Sunday morning as Saturday night protocol.
    If it pays off, non-christian Gods be praised.
    You are doing well against the thing I hate most : the feminine Imperiative.
    I won’t go into big comment about this, but Rollo Thomassi makes the point.
    The trouble is, it is so strong ( even in our MRA minds ), and silent ( Our girlfiends don’t even know what we are talking of, about it ), that it is the hardest thing to fight in the world.

  2. Havving just read the linked blog post at the centre of this, I have to say that there’s something much more significant to note. After that steaming pile of veiled, gynocentric, misandry apologetics, how Dalrock can class himself as being remotely an MRA is a complete and utter anathema.

    This argument and proposed solution, far from breaking from the traditional paradigms of male disposability, actually argue in favour of it.

    The fact is that a steady supply of sex was one of the more insidious snares society has always subjected men to. A man makes himself disposable and reduces himself to a glorified human shield and walking atm. However the steady supply of sex he receives in turn, is a snare, rather than a reward by which a man is measured and reduced to his utility.

    Misandry hasn’t come about because of feminist laws – feminist laws have merely exploited pre-existing misandry. Yet Dalrock claims that the solution to feminism is to reinstate a cultural grouping which is the most fundamental and ideologically central embodiment of gynocentric misandry in human history (the tradcon model of marriage)? And this guy is heralded as an MRA? Seriously? Are you s***ing me?

    The fact is that the only way someone can oppose feminism and at the same time, reinforce and engage in glorifying apologetics pertaining to male disposability, is if they are in fact an anti-feminist tradcon (the exception to the adage “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”). If you cannot see that, then I have 4 words for you – take the red pill.

  3. So men being in charge of their families is “gynocentrism”. Perhaps also this “Gynocentrism” is rooted in biology and hard reality?

    Men reign women submit. That’s the natural order.

    Its called normal gender roles deal with it!

    • disinfowarrior1, before I give you the mother of all kicks to the curb, let’s look at the system you claim is “normal gender roles” and militantly defend – Marriage 1.0.

      The system you are referring to is one where men are dehumanised and reduced to a utility of being nothing more than perpetual ATMs, penises on legs and human shields – where men every as young boys are taught that if they are traumatised victims of any kind, it is their fault for failing to “man up” or in the case of female perpetrators “for it happening to begin with”. It is a system where men are taught that they should and must want sex arbitratrily whilst being fed sex constantly as some kind of Orwellian soma. This is all so a woman’s womb can be perpetually shielded from everything and is deemed to have more arbitrary worth, when you look at the survivalist reasoning behind it, of over 280 men and boys.

      Everything feminists have introduced has been nothing more than legal and ideological opportunism – as every feminist argument has its ideological roots in the very model of traditionalism you put forward.

      Patriarchal theory pseudo existed long before feminism as it acts as though the only men which exist are the rich and powerful. This view is grounded in the emasculatory and misandrist view society has always had towards men who fail to make it to the top, do not attempt to make it to the top and particularly towards men who are destitute. Conversely because women were infantalised, the notion of women at the top having power, even through the men at the top they were married to or relatives of, is dismissed as an impossibility.

      The family courts are no different. Every single law regarding child support, child custody and alimony is stemmed in the traditionalist belief that mothers are solely the nurturers and therefor the best place for the child is with the mother as fathers, under the marriage 1.0 you so militantly defend, are nothing more than atms on legs and human shields where the child is born.

      People rail against primary aggressor laws and the legal situation with, false rape allegations and yet they forget that they existed long ago in the form of proxy violence against “bad men” by “good men”. Primary aggressor laws and the legal situation with false rape allegations, are nothing more than this custom of proxy violence being turned into legislature.

      People rail against the legalised notions of domestic violence and raqpe being something that only men do to women, yet this too is entirely grounded in traditionalist beliefs centred around the paradigm of male-disposability/female-infantalisation.

      Furthermore male victims of rape, domestic violence, pedophilia and child abuse at the hands of women and girls, being mocked, shamed and shunned through such callous tropes as “man up” and “grow a pair”, is entirely aq traditionalist invention and is the ideological foundation of the feminist trope of “men are only perpetrators; women are only victims”.

      People are horrified at children as young as 12 paying child support to female sex offenders, yet this is nothing more than the legalised, modern day version of a shotgun wedding (and we all know or can hazard an educated guess at how the term originally came about) – where boys much like men are expected to just “man up to their responsibilities”.

      Yet your response is that men who are the victims of the system or who see how the system makes every single man a potential victim [and at best a perpetual slave] just have to “deal with it” [translation- “take a teaspoon of cement and harden the **** up”. As a survivor of child abuse, domestic violence and rape at the hands of women, if that is your attitude then my response is this – go take a live chainsaw and use it as a suppository.

      You like talking about hard realities, so here’s one for you – your entire post, in it’s zeitgeist based approach, has engaged in baseless rape, domestic violence and pedophile apologetics where the victim is male and the abuser is female. Such an approach proves that you are as much a “friend” to men’s rights as Valeria Solanas (and yes, given the ideological underpinnings of your argument, that comparison is entirely accurate). The only difference between her and you is that where she wanted men and boys murdered en-masse, you want them reduced to a perpetual state of dehumanised slavery.

      So either stop PRETENDING you even remotely care about the plight of men and boys or take a long hard look in the mirror and take the red pill. The choice is yours, but for those of us in the movement who are forward enough in our thinking, your hypocrisy is utterly transparent.

      • Perhaps the model advocated for by Dalrock and infowarrior1 here is not the traditional model in which men are stuck with the bills and the risks,but a model similar to this one in which women have equivalent responsibilities to society and/or do not enjoy the same level of social privileges as they did in times past. What is it to you if an individual man wants to be a human shield for his wife,as long as she cannot clean him out in a divorce or take his kids away from him? The truth is, without the feminists laws, and lawyers, the disadvantages of traditional marriage are negligible. Sure,the man gets fucked. But we always get fucked. I’d rather be fucked in an unhappy,loveless, or sexless marriage, than fucked in a van under the bridge with a bottle of Jim Beam,asking myself where I went wrong and contemplating suicide.

        Please note, this is not an endorsement of traditional marriage. What this is is like me saying “Malaria is worse than rabies because rabies takes seven years to kill you and malaria may only take a few months”. It is also not a final authoritative take on he subject. Even with malaria vs rabies,the subject can never be satisfactorily settled as to which disease is preferable for one to contract. Both of them suck.

        • Nergal, while I appreciate what you’re trying to do, the fact is that disinfowarrior1’s post is as clear as crystal. One particular line in there says it all.

          Let’s look at exactly how he views things: “Men reign women submit. That’s the natural order.” (any examination of said quote will make it apparent that this is far from quote mining)

          Let’s start by examining the first sentence. That is a very paternalist view towards women. Why is that of concern to MRAs? The paternalism which women were subjected has at its ideological foundations, female infantalisation. Female infantalisation of course is facilitated by and perpetuated by, wait for it, male disposability. Thus the paternalism of women, or institutionalised gynocentrism, is what is actually the greatest enemy to men’s rights – an enemy which disinfowarrior1 clearly supports and has just blatantly defended.

          Furthermore, you’ve suggested that he might be arguing for marriage 2.0 which actually demands female accountability. However as there is no room for female accountability under any kind of social model based on female infantalisation, this clearly is anything but the case.

          Then there’s the second sentence where he claims that a system which I have just proven to be facilitated entirely by male-disposability is effectively natural law (his exact words were that it is the “natural order).

          The moment you advocate for every piece of “conventional wisdom” about the gender differences between men and women being completely and utterly biologically hardwired (which is what terms like “the natural order” explicitly mean), as opposed to being amplified by society’s ideological foundations of pragmatic survivalism to ridiculous levels, then what you are arguing for is precisely the traditionalist system of marriage 1.0 of complete female infantalisation and male disposability.

          In short, it’s blatantly obvious that the guy is an anti-feminist tradcon rather than any kind of MRA or friend to men’s rights.

          Furthermore, as a male victim of extreme violence at the hands of another man and domestic violence, sexual violence and child abuse at the hands of women, I can tell you firsthand that most of the mockery you receive isn’t from feminists or women – it’s from men and tradcons. Considering that this sort of misandrist socialised psychological brutality to male victims as well as the proxy violence against men in traditionalist societies, perhaps a more accurate better disease comparison you could have used would be between an aggressively malignant tumor and the Ebola virus.

        • Men reign women submit. That’s the natural order.
          We don’t live in a state of nature anymore. I figure both men and women in a marriage can contribute by bringing in money and treating each other.
          Or living to a more modest standard if only one person is working.
          Otherwise, the so-called “heteronormative” model of only the man working, means
          He is likely going to be told to work himself to death, to keep his wife in the style she is accustomed, to “prove his love to her”.
          Meanwhile, she doesn’t have to “prove her chastity to him alone”.
          Sounds like a great deal, NOT.

        • But then Ray, how much of it was even a natural state to begin with and how much at an ideological level has really changed?

          Women working in jobs still by and large have “safe” occupations so the gynocentrism and infantalisation has never really gone out the window.

          What has happened though is that the need for male utility has shrunk with the increase in female professional options.

          This shouldn’t be an issue, except that men have only ever been valued for their utility and so as male utility has become less valued, so have men in general. Hence why misandry is so utterly overt these days in society – overt being the operative word.

          However let’s strip it all back to pre-modern medicine and modern technology times. Nostalgia can really make people wear rose coloured glasses with some things and Marriage 1.0 is no different (in fact why aren’t we calling marriage 2.0 marriage 1.0 for that matter as ideologically, they are identical). What was requiired of men? Complete and utter dehumanisation, emotional self-detachment and complete and utter expendibility.

          People argue that the tradeoff was that men got respect and adulation. Of course people forget that this was only true when men were in ascendence. The moment they went into decline, they were the objects of ridicule. How on earth does that system even remotely value men as human beings.

          In many cases, this was men wounded in war or unable to be cannon fodder in war. Heck it’s highly telling that the first charity set up to deal with war casualties and injuries, was Leacy, whose role it is to support the widows of soldiers- not the soldiers, but their widows.

          Meanwhile any man who had the misfortune to trip over his intestines or get one or more arms and legs blown off, was ultimately left high and dry by society in the long run.

          That is of course ignoring men who shared similar fates due to occupational hazards.

          Yet this was supposedly a good system for men – despite the fact that all they got was smoke blown up their asses and only while they were in ascendency? Give me a break.

          At some point we need to accept that while there are biological differences, male disposability, male stoicism, gynocentrism and female infantalisation, are all grounded completely in socialisation rather than biology.


Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale Football Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NHL Jerseys Wholesale NHL Jerseys Cheap NBA Jerseys Wholesale NBA Jerseys Cheap MLB Jerseys Wholesale MLB Jerseys Cheap College Jerseys Cheap NCAA Jerseys Wholesale College Jerseys Wholesale NCAA Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys
Translate »
%d bloggers like this: