Suppose we switched from Patriarchy to Matriarchy?

Post Reply New Topic

A woman who gets supported financially by a Prince Charming is going to have to put out sexually at the very least. But hey, sex isn't a commodity right? The reason why marriage as an institution was created in the first place was as a business transaction: The man shares his property with the woman and in return the woman grants him unrestricted access to her hoo-hoo.

But surely there are some naive, foolish *nice guys* out there who would bankroll you and never overtly insist that you grant them sex in return and pretend that it's all about "twue wuv" in the hopes that you'll feel endeared to them and grant them a mercy f*ck. But you seem like the type who is inclined to take without giving back whenever you can get away with it. So FYI I, AspieRogue, am not one of those men. You want me to send you that 3K check you'd better have some collateral, honey.

No, that's just *your* definition. Last time I checked, you don't own the English language.

Otherwise, *these* would be works consisting only of subjective value-judgements.
http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps200 ... 80p239.pdf
http://erc.endocrinology-journals.org/c ... 1.full.pdf

Oh, and a more common sense example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferior_good



Yourself included, as demonstrated above.

Made-up facts from PUA blogs are fun at 0500 in the morning.



I don't think your mom would lend you 3K anyway, so it's a moot point. Have a nice day at school.

Last edited by XFilesGeek on 01 Nov 2012, 6:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

No, but the dictionary is a good start:



Hence, a subjective value-judgement with the exception of #4, and primarily based on arbitrary and subjective criteria. The fact that people choose to mangle the English language doesn't negate the actual meaning of the term.

Or does the constant misuse of the term "ironic" mean that it has suddenly been redefined as well? I can't keep up with the Interwebz and its language-destryoing ways.



Behold the unmitigated wonder of the correct definition of a word!

Now that that's cleared up, we need to get people to stop blowing hot air about nonsense like "soft values" and "success" and comprehend the difference between "objective observation" and "subjective interpretations of objective facts."

Not that I'm expecting miracles.

You're going quite too far here, multiple of the definitions are not inherently subjective or objective. The three first ones can arguably be used in both cases. Of course, it would depend on the criteria on which one bases the conclusion.

For instance if I argue that hard values are superior in business and base that on companies that pursue hard values in their approach to business having larger market capitalizations and higher earnings when compared to companies that pursue soft values, then my designation of the former as superior is not a subjective value judgment, it's an objective conclusion if you change the premises of the argument itself, then you can possible make it subjective.

If I argue that hard values are superior in business based on an idea in my head, then it's subjective.



The difference between an objective observation and a subjective interpretation of objective fact, is that the objective observation can be tested, the subjective interpretation of objective fact cannot. Seeing as everything I've argued in this thread can be tested, the impact of soft values permeating through our society for instance, which can be tested through GDP growth, academic results, the prevalence of mental illness, statistics on criminal and deviant behavior, market capitalizations and earnings, they are more akin to conclusions through logic than they are subjective value judgments.

According to Thomas Kuhn there really is no objectivity in any field, due to the experiences of each observer affecting their judgment. This would indicate that no objective judgment can ever be made in any field, Of course, if we buy the content of your statements, then the entire field of philosophy needs to go, because it is inherently based on constructs created in the mind through a mix of observation and use of logic.

So, do you believe that women fall into two categories: whores and those who expect stuff for free? You do realise that most women are neither.

No.

Were you just trying to piss off X Files Geek, then?

I'm finished with school, bb. Besides, I don't read PUA blogs nor do I get money from me mum. Nice try, though.


When you can't come up with a cogent rebuttal, try sarcasm and ridicule! You're so full of butthurt you're gonna need to fill out one of These.




^Puddingmouse: I was being snarky to XfilesGeek in response to her sarcasm and attempts to 1up me.

I thought that you didn't use this word.

I can't really come up with a "cogent rebuttal" to a temper tantrum, and seeing as you launch into sobby screaming fits every time someone disagrees with your worldview, I doubt I'll ever have the opportunity.

Good luck with that job hunt.

....which is precisely what you've been doing this entire thread.



No, you've arbitrarily defined "soft values," then you proceed to cherry-pick data that supports your arbitrary definition, and then you arbitrarily re-arrange the facts in the order of importance as according to your emotional preferences.

It doesn't demonstrate anything that actually exists in reality, it just demonstrates your preference for blaming women for the things you personally, and subjectively, define as "problems" in society, and attributing everything you see as "positive" to male influence. Not objective. Not logical. Just subjective interpretations of objective facts.

But, like I said, I wasn't expecting miracles.



The sun is objectively hot. If Mr. Kuhn doubts it, he's free to take a rocket ship and go pay our great star a visit.

I was speaking from the POV of a sexist person.

The effect of hard or soft values on business measured by market capitalization and earnings is hardly subjective.



Well Mulder, what I did was construct an argument, I realize that such a thing is frighting and confusing to you (like indoor plumbing). An argument tends to go:

What you're attempting to do is to frame my argument in it's entirety as a subjective value judgment. Your method for attempting this include calling into question what I've defined as "problems" in society, which would be things like the prevalence of mental illness and crime rates, things I assumes that a reasonable person would agree are actual problems. Thus, it was considered a priori, however if you like you are more than welcome to argue that crime rates and the prevalence of mental illness are in fact not problems for a society. Or that market capitalization and earnings are not in fact the correct way to measure the success of a business.

As for the definition of "soft values" as people centric values, if you find it unreasonable present your own.

The conclusion that the influx of soft values have correlated with higher rates of mental illness and crime and furthermore has shown no correlation with higher market capitalizations in companies or higher earnings in companies is entirely testable against reality.

Like I said, you're are more than welcome to refute any part of my premises or my conclusion. However, you seem content with not discussing the arguments themselves and instead prefer to turn this into a meta discussion which only has the effect of derailing the discussion at hand. I've seen you do this in every thread where I've seen you make an appearance.

So in short, if market capitalizations and earnings are both objective measures for the success of a company. Crime rates and rates of mental disorders are objectively deemed problems for a society.

Soft values are synonymous with "social responsibility", which is the accepted definition of the term in business circles. Furthermore, soft values being more female values, as evidenced by more participation in charity and philanthropy among women than men (as volunteers, C-level executives and board members of philanthropic organizations), a higher prevalence of women with the feeling trait on tests like Myers-Briggs and a higher prevalence of women in nurturing professions.

Then my entire argument can be objectively tested, now you are free to disagree with my data but that doesn't mean it's not objective. You are free to disagree with my conclusion, but that doesn't mean it's not objective.



Hot in comparison to what?

Now, are you actually going to make a real argument pertaining to what this thread is about, or are you going to keep derailing the discussion?

Idealistically soft values are superior.

Ok, now the gloves come off.

Nice one. You are your own worst enemy. Cherry-picking TM's post (In case you missed it, that quote from TM was preceded by two sections that just "vanished" in your reply) and then accusing him of cherry-picking?

I try not to defend other posters (that's their job), but sometimes BS reaches intolerable levels...



No, you were apparently expecting everyone to bow down in favour of your complete lack of scientific insight. Any phenomenon which can be phrased within the concept of falsifiability is scientific. Unless your increasingly obvious aura of self-importance enables you to consider yourself superior (:twisted:) to Karl Popper.



Epic straw man. Popper provided a framework for what science is (how do we arrive at accurate statements about reality?), which is basically the mainstream scientific view today.

Kuhn and Lakatos provided frameworks for how human beings approach science. If you are incapable of acknowledging this obvious difference, then perhaps you are not qualified to admonish others for their alleged shortcomings when it comes to logic and objectivity.

Seriously, XFilesGeek, you are a joke...