Thread: Moral Development (and Women's Morality)

Originally Posted by johnsmith79

PS: I'm just using this as an example of how I'd prefer to answer you in person verses being on a forum for others to read, so please don't take it beyond what its meant to be, a bit of humour. I'd love to reply "Look Gramps, them Kilkenny's killed off yer last braincells eh? The head on ye. Them geebags have the morality of pups and saps, I ain't the first one to say it and I ain't gonna be the last. This here's the evidence for it, from them lick arses that managed to make it past them narkey holes in academia. Ye may be thick about it, but it ain't all gobshite. Scarlet for ye ma for having yer"

Ah fair play ta ye. Ye nailed me. Sure isn’t this how I go? And me ma would indeed be embarrassed for havin’ me but then again she was a total gobshite herself.

I really do appreciate a bit of banter.

I think you'd at least relate better to that kind of … conversation

Think again!

Originally Posted by johnsmith79

I start my post 'Respectfully' to emphasize my frame of mind when touching on sensitive or contentious topics, especially so on the internet where the written word is devoid of the tonality and body-language that makes up a bulk human communication. With sensitive topics such as these, coupled with disagreements over points of view, it becomes easy to infer an angry or hostile tone where none exist. That you have interpreted it as a lack-of-respect is indicative that even the utmost effort to avoid misinterpretation has failed. This is shocking, regrettable and runs contrary to intention.

Really?

When someone starts a phrase or counter-argument thusly it states categorically that what is to follow is a total dismissal of the former POV.

I agree though that the written word is often misinterpreted and care should be taken, but with the exception of this term I saw no inference of hostility on your part; you, like myself, were just expressing your stance. I’m no snow-flake and don’t need to be tippy-toed around.

I have stated my points without attacking your motives, or implying you have some sort of agenda and have taken great care in keeping this exchange purely intellectual, devoid of ad hominem attacks, and would appreciate a similar reciprocation from you.

Hmm. Ad-hominem attacks? Where exactly have I attacked you personally except in self-defence, i.e. your constant use of the term “respectfully” which, as already stated denotes a lack of respect for my POV.

Maybe you believe this to be in my question?

How does one go their own way whilst simultaneously espousing the rhetoric of the state-run academia?

But I meant this as an honest question. As you yourself have stated tone can easily be misinterpreted.

The only motives I have questioned have been on the intent of the study, not of you. You have stated your motives clearly as an MRA and I appreciate this candour. This does not mean that I agree with your stance, only that I don’t disagree.


So, why ask the question if it wasn’t a personal dig?

The answer lies in these statements:

Academia has always been so inclined from its very inception. It is about education yes, but it is also about conformation. This was true back when just as much as it is now.

So, keep picking and choosing the studies that seem to back up your stance, you’re attempting to play their game when they are stacking the deck. They lure you in with something you agree with in principle if not in detail. Then they reveal the follow-up study that lures you in a little more. Before you know it, you’re espousing their rhetoric to all asunder, even under the MGTOW banner.

The education system seeks not only to teach basic skills such as numeracy and literacy – they are the lure. It also seeks to enforce conformity. It teaches how to think, which is good, but it also teaches what to think.

This is fair enough when it comes to obeying the law, but it also tries to teach morality and here there is a problem.

The indoctrination of morality by the state poses huge problems to the individual and this study is just more of the same.

I’ve already pointed out 2 possible ulterior motives for this work, namely:

1: That all people should be considered equal – a socialist stance that doesn’t bear up to scrutiny.

2: That it’s a lure. Maybe this needs some further explanation:

If one looks to studies to explain the obvious then that gives credence to studies in general. This works well when one comes across a study he agrees with, but what of those he doesn’t?

All of his arguments backing the study he agrees with, such as well researched and having the backing of academic peers, also apply to the studies he disagrees with.

If he agrees with the reasoning for one, shouldn’t he apply that same reasoning for all?


Some of these studies can be beneficial in certain situations, but most are just an excuse to back up a particular narrative.

The reasons for this should be obvious, that in order to obtain their grants to further their studies they have to relate to the current zeitgeist and this study is no different.


And I agree with you that he doesn’t categorically state that seeing everyone as equal is somehow a higher level of development, but this is intentional.

If you tell someone “This is how you should think” there will be a natural rebellion to it. However, if you merely imply it then it’s more likely to find fertile soil.


Does any of this make sense to you John?

Sigh. I don't want to, but you made me go there.

Me beginning a sentence with 'Respectfully', means just that - 'With Respect'.
1) You're twisting black into white where the word now has a completely opposite meaning. That's some severe double-think.
2) Your attempts to twist the meaning of the word doesn't change what the word means.
3) Because you take it as disrespect, I now self-censor it, despite the fact it makes my frame more open to misinterpretation by Joe Public.

You have framed a question with a pre-supposition that is a ad-hom smear: that I am 'espousing the rhetoric of state run academia'.
1) Firstly, I strongly disagree with your pre-supposition that what I'm saying is rhetoric.
2) I'd point out that this is common tactic to smear public speakers where someone asks them: 'how they do X while sexually abusing women', the pre-supposition being that they sexually abuse women.
3) I'm advancing red-pill discussion from 'unproven' to 'observed and proven'. This helps men deepen their understanding of women and men-women dynamics.
4) Blue-pill society would rather have our discussion remain at the unproven level so they can dismiss us and our experiences with women as unfortunate coincidence, and not something inherent in women.

On studies, the scientific method works is because it is verifiable and repeatable.
1) Studies on men's and women's morality have been done repeatedly by various bodies in various years and across the world;
2) Results show differences between men's and women's morality. It is verifiable and repeatable.
3) Issues with the education system (indoctrination, funding, conformity) do not invalidate the scientific method and are attempts to muddy the water and steer away from the central discussion, that men and women are morally different.

You say you're not a snowflake, yet you're employing the very behaviour of the snowflakes:
1) twisting words to mean the direct opposite of what it means;
2) getting offended by the use of certain words, which then have to censored;
3) using character smears to cast doubt on their opponents;
4) attempting to muddy the water on scientific sources;
5) attempting to steer discussion away from the central thesis;

I know that you're better than this. Yet, the past posts I have had to keep steering the discussion back to the central thesis about female nature and differences in morality, while you've been attempting to run off in different directions about use of words, about education being conformity, state funding and rhetoric.

With the forums going down, the parting words and last messages we leave here should be on point and clear for the men who need it most - those who are confused about female nature and seeking out red-pills. That's how we can help leave our mark and will make the most impact to men's lives.

With that, I'm calling an end to this thread. To you and the anyone who likes what I write or wants to have a discussion, I will be posting at https://mengtow.freeforums.net/

The last word is yours Jackoff.

I agree that there is no point in continuing this discussion, but since you have made assertions about my tactics I will address these points.

Originally Posted by johnsmith79

You have framed a question with a pre-supposition that is a ad-hom smear: that I am 'espousing the rhetoric of state run academia'.

This was not meant as a smear, but as a statement of fact. It was an attempt to get you to see that by relying on academia to bolster your position you are playing into their hands. An attempt that has obviously failed.

1) Firstly, I strongly disagree with your pre-supposition that what I'm saying is rhetoric.

I never said that what you were saying was rhetoric. I agree with what you say about the behaviour of women being mostly concerned with social interactions and that they have a different morality to men. I have said so repeatedly myself. The rhetoric I was referring to was that of academia, not you.

2) I'd point out that this is common tactic to smear public speakers where someone asks them: 'how they do X while sexually abusing women', the pre-supposition being that they sexually abuse women.

???

Again, not a smear nor ad-hom, merely a statement of fact that you are relying on academia, the instigators of much of the current zeitgeist to bolster your position.

3) I'm advancing red-pill discussion from 'unproven' to 'observed and proven'. This helps men deepen their understanding of women and men-women dynamics.

4) Blue-pill society would rather have our discussion remain at the unproven level so they can dismiss us and our experiences with women as unfortunate coincidence, and not something inherent in women.

Hmm. Proven is a very strong word. Such studies are not “proof” of anything, at best they are evidence.

In this case it is unnecessary IMO because the evidence that women look to societal constructs and interactions, and have a different morality is there for everyone to see. Many don’t see this because the thought never occurred to them, but once mentioned they wholeheartedly agree – because it’s obvious. And for the few that disagree with what their own observations tell them, they are unlikely to be swayed by some study carried out somewhere by someone.

It therefore follows that studies reinforcing this observation are quite simply redundant.

If the results of the studies are redundant, then it begs the question of why the study was conducted in the first place, hence my questioning of the motives of such studies. To understand these motives, one must look towards the final conclusions, in this case being the implication that all are equal.

On studies, the scientific method works is because it is verifiable and repeatable.

I have no issue with this viewpoint in principle, in practice however it is rarely applied. People tend to use the methodologies of scientific method to reach an already decided upon end goal – an agenda – and thereafter classify their findings as scientifically based. In short, they find exactly what they started out to find.

1) Studies on men's and women's morality have been done repeatedly by various bodies in various years and across the world;
2) Results show differences between men's and women's morality. It is verifiable and repeatable.

Yup. Your point? Again, differences between male and female moralities are there for anyone to see if only they wish to look. To this end, providing examples of such differences, such that we do on MGTOW forums will illustrate this better to the everyday Joe and Jane than any academic study.

3) Issues with the education system (indoctrination, funding, conformity) do not invalidate the scientific method and are attempts to muddy the water and steer away from the central discussion, that men and women are morally different.

Never have I even suggested that men and women are not morally different, of course we are. There is no attempt to muddy any water in this regard.

You say you're not a snowflake, yet you're employing the very behaviour of the snowflakes:

Oh, that’s cold, and wildly inaccurate.

1) twisting words to mean the direct opposite of what it means;
2) getting offended by the use of certain words, which then have to censored;

I did not twist words to mean the direct opposite of their meaning, I merely have a huge amount of experience of people saying one thing whist implying the opposite and see it very clearly as an attempt to manipulate, something you’re quite accomplished at.

I simply prefer it when people come at me straight on when they disagree with me, as they are entitled to do, instead of hiding behind pleasantries.

There now – that’s an ad hominem attack and one I feel is well deserved, and even overdue.

3) using character smears to cast doubt on their opponents;

What are these “character smears” that you are referring to?

4) attempting to muddy the water on scientific sources;

Already answered.

5) attempting to steer discussion away from the central thesis

My intent was not deflection, rather it was to try to explain to you that academic studies are not what they appear to be. You don’t seem to realise the truth of this yet but hopefully you will someday.


As an MRA I imagine you are used to using any means at your disposal to convince others of the validity of your assertions about the differences between male and female morality and behaviour, but with MGTOW you are preaching to the choir. We already know that we have different takes on things.

Many of us have come to see academia as the instigators of much that is wrong with the western world, it is the place where many minds are warped into believing in the nonsensical.

It is your reliance on academia that I have issue with, not your stance on male/female dynamics.

Originally Posted by Jackoff

I agree that there is no point in continuing this discussion, but since you have made assertions about my tactics I will address these points.

There is no point continuing the discussion because you have derailed it. Look, the topic of the thread is Women's Morality, not Jackoff's Issues with Academia.
You won't challenge the topic therefore you are intentionally resorting to off-topic challenges to muddy the water and derail the discussion, typical tactics Feminists like to employ.

This was not meant as a smear, but as a statement of fact. It was an attempt to get you to see that by relying on academia to bolster your position you are playing into their hands. An attempt that has obviously failed.

Patently dishonest. If I replied to you:
"How do you go you own way while employing the debate tactics of Feminists? This was not a smear, but a statement of fact. It was an attempt to get you to see that by relying on debate tactics of Feminists to bolster you position, you are playing into their hands."

Do you see the ad-hom now Jackoff?

I agree with what you say about the behaviour of women being mostly concerned with social interactions and that they have a different morality to men. I have said so repeatedly myself.

Thank you for returning to topic.

Proven is a very strong word. Such studies are not “proof” of anything, at best they are evidence.

Another dishonest attempt. Proof IS evidence. Do you know how crazy it is to say what you said?

"proof noun 1. evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement"

In this case it is unnecessary IMO because the evidence that women look to societal constructs and interactions, and have a different morality is there for everyone to see. Many don’t see this because the thought never occurred to them, but once mentioned they wholeheartedly agree – because it’s obvious.

Unnecessary? Having proof is absolutely necessary.
What's next? You're going to suggest making arguments without logic?

Without proof, anyone can dismiss whatever is being said here as the ramblings of some disgruntled man.
Here's a reminder - You started a thread "Female nature is... Confusion", where you stated you found female nature confusing. I replied to you with an assertion that they have a different morality - an assertion I had to back up with Proof. If I didn't provide proof, you could have easily dismissed it.

Under your system, anyone can say anything without backing it up? Without proof? Just because its obvious? Come on man, think!
What's obvious to you may not be obvious to someone else.

If the results of the studies are redundant, then it begs the question of why the study was conducted in the first place, hence my questioning of the motives of such studies.

Again, these studies aren't redundant because they provide proof backing up assertions.
To you it may be redundant, but to the public proof is required. I could have replied you by PM and the message would be just to you.
Whatever is written in public forums is also for Joe Public, and therefore needs proof backing it up.

To understand these motives, one must look towards the final conclusions, in this case being the implication that all are equal.

Again patently dishonest, deliberate or out of ignorance. Jackoff you're smart, so I'm inclined to believe this is deliberate.
The original study and methodology is in public domain. The Heinz Question (with no Right or Wrong answer) was posed to young children and their answers recorded. Researchers note the ages and children's answers. Answers changed as children develop (approximately 4-10-16 years old) and it is noted that children answers move away from being selfish/self-centered towards noting other people's needs as children age. The children's answers are the results of the study.
The study and methodology is public, meaning anyone can see if there is any slant or bias in conducting the study, and anyone can conduct their own study to see the results for themselves. You are being deliberately dishonest by saying this is conclusion motivated.
If there was any bias or slanting of the results to fit pre-determined conclusions, the study would have been immediately scrapped and debunked long ago.

I have no issue with this viewpoint in principle, in practice however it is rarely applied. People tend to use the methodologies of scientific method to reach an already decided upon end goal – an agenda – and thereafter classify their findings as scientifically based. In short, they find exactly what they started out to find.

Misdirection. If that were the case the Feminists in academia would ensure their findings show either women are equal or if not more morally developed than men. No women or feminist in academia would want to allow for a study to show women are less developed.

Again, differences between male and female moralities are there for anyone to see if only they wish to look. To this end, providing examples of such differences, such that we do on MGTOW forums will illustrate this better to the everyday Joe and Jane than any academic study.

Patently untrue. Personal examples are usually dismissed by blue-pill society as unfortunate coincidence and unfortunate events happening to MGTOWs.
We've been debating enough blue-pillers for years to know that. You're being deliberately dishonest.

I did not twist words to mean the direct opposite of their meaning, I merely have a huge amount of experience of people saying one thing whist implying the opposite and see it very clearly as an attempt to manipulate

Patently dishonest. You take 'Respectfully' to mean 'Disrespect', the direct opposite of its meaning.
If anyone is manipulative, it is you wanting to restrict how someone speaks and presents their argument just because you don't like it when someone is being courteous.
If I start my sentence with another word, 'With Consideration', you'll still say it means the opposite. Are you aware of debating rules and why one should engage with courtesy?

I simply prefer it when people come at me straight on when they disagree with me, as they are entitled to do, instead of hiding behind pleasantries.

There we go, at least you admit it. Someone debates and conducts themselves in a polite manner, and you're not happy with that, so you want to control how they debate and present themselves, and drag them down a level.
Well, sorry to say not everyone wants to debate in your preferred manner.
You're controlling. You're manipulative. And you've just admitted it.

Are you aware that an impolite debate easily gets derailed? Perhaps that's what you ultimately want. Perhaps you want to deliberately derail the topic, as you've obviously done with this thread.

Not once have I tried to control what words you can or can't say in your sentences. Yet you're doing it to me.
You want to drag others down to debate at your level. Yet, not once have I said you should debate at mine.
And I'm being manipulative?

Just because you don't like me being polite, you twist the words I say to mean something else.
Do you not see how you're conducting yourself?
Do you not see how you're being controlling and manipulative?

You're attempting to control the words I can and cannot use. Have I done anything remotely the same to you?
What gives you the right to demand I not use certain words or that I should debate at your level?
It probably hasn't occurred to you that I would prefer it if you debated me with a higher level of courtesy instead, right?

If you want to see who is being manipulative, look in the f'ing mirror.

There now – that’s an ad hominem attack and one I feel is well deserved, and even overdue.

And you're a closet Feminist, trying to derail a thread which is meant to help men swallow red-pills.

You use the very same tools that Feminists use in debates.
You use personal attacks instead of addressing the main topic.
You try to control which words one can and cannot use just because you want to control their speech.
You use slander and accuse them of something they're not doing, while doing the very thing you accuse them of.

If anyone deserves an ad-hom attack, its you Jackoff.

@ johnsmith79

I have made one observation about your repeated use of one word – such word being “Respectully” – and your motives for its use, that it was being used to hide your true intent.

You have since reinforced this observation with this post:

PS: I'm just using this as an example of how I'd prefer to answer you in person verses being on a forum for others to read, so please don't take it beyond what its meant to be, a bit of humour. I'd love to reply "Look Gramps, them Kilkenny's killed off yer last braincells eh? The head on ye. Them geebags have the morality of pups and saps, I ain't the first one to say it and I ain't gonna be the last. This here's the evidence for it, from them lick arses that managed to make it past them narkey holes in academia. Ye may be thick about it, but it ain't all gobshite. Scarlet for ye ma for having yer"

Where you hide your insults under the guise of humour, something I allowed to pass but now bring to your attention.

In return for this single observation, which you have now shown to be not beyond you, you have referred to me as:

A snowflake (indirectly)
Braindead
Dishonest
Deliberately ignorant
A feminist (indirectly)
Controlling
Slanderous

And I may have missed a few.

The rest of my post content has been directed at academia which is central to your O.P., yet when I address this you claim that I am deliberately attempting to derail and misdirect the thread?

And you claim that you are trying to be respectful and courteous?

Huh!

Carry on though, I have no more interest in anything you have to say.

I have made one observation about your repeated use of one word – such word being “Respectully” – and your motives for its use, that it was being used to hide your true intent.

Similarly, I have made repeated observations of your attempts to derail the thread, and your ad-hom attacks which were clearly attacks on my character. I had even appealed to you to address the central topic instead of going off on tangents.

In return for this single observation, which you have now shown to be not beyond you, you have referred to me as:

In return for my appeal to refrain from ad-hom attacks and to stick to challenging the central topic, you have:
Continued to attack my character and motives
Twisted my words, being offended at certain words I use (which I immediately stopped using)
Accused me of espousing state-driven rhetoric (indirectly)
Accused me of being manipulative
Stated that proof is unnecessary
Stated that the studies are redundant
Attempted to cast doubt on the studies and implied the scientific method was conclusion driven

The bulk of your content was dishonest, misdirection and repeatedly going off topic.

Oh, the gloves came off when you continued attacking me with smears to my character.

You've been freely slandering, saying I'm manipulative, even though it was you who successfully manipulated and controlled which words I could use and how I should conduct myself in a debate. Even after I self-censored to appease you, you kept using me like a punching bag, saying I'm 'accomplished at manipulation', and using ad-hom smears, while saying 'this is not a smear but a statement of fact'. I called for an end to the discussion, and you kept right on swinging.

What did you think you can keep punching someone and not get hit back?

You wanted to drag me down a level and expressed in your own words, to 'come at you straight on'.
Are you happy now that I've come down to the level you wanted me to?

I have no more interest in anything you have to say.

The feeling is mutual.