Even good (?) intentions can be bad

I’d be out of action the last week or so, but coming back I had a slew of comments to go through (and readers who dont comment, I make it a habit to respond to every new commenter, and often respond to any comments in general other than between people) and this one caught my attention enough to write a post about.

In my last post Eurdite Dark Knight (sic) wrote a long comment, I think it was supposed to be inspiring, or maybe advice, but it comes across as someone still plugged-in / pre-pill where they want to help you, but their advice is given by someone who hasn’t been there, and doesnt really know.  It would be easy to attack the person, but I think there is a legitimate chance they were attempting to be ‘helpful’ so I will simply talk about their argument.

Eurdite Dark Knight: ‘You seem to think that the entire female sex is less than you in almost every way. When in reality there are some women out there that are, dare i say it, smarter and stronger than you. They might even be in love with men who are “better” than you, in EVERY way. What happens when the hero of your story loses? When he realizes he is not the most superior being in his world.’

This has a few problems, first of all it is a heavy strawman argument that makes it easier to start the bashing, second, this is a very heavy ‘NAWALT!!!’ argument (not all women are like that).  I talk a bit about NAWALT-ism here (https://eruditeknight.wordpress.com/2013/10/12/why-i-write/) but this is a low level argument you encounter frequently once you start to wake up to the reality around us.  At its most base, it posits that because literally NOT ALL women can be that bitchy/slutty/stupid/etc the claim is therefore false.

This fallacy is a mix of Anecdotal and Texas sharpshooter, where because this person ‘knows a girl’ who is not part of the claim, it therefore disproves it, because they cherry pick their exception (often female Olympians to prove males arent stronger) the fallacy concludes that this is a valid argument.  Of course, it isnt, a exception does not an argument make.  Or, depending on how its phrased, it could be a ‘Special pleading’ fallacy that where a claim is shown to be wrong, attempts to ‘plead’ for an exception, thus ‘not all women are like that’.

There is a saying ‘the exception proves the rule’ I dont really like that because if it was a rule, it wouldn’t have an exception, what I like better is my own creation ‘the exception proves the generality’.  I have long railed against modern women, but my claims are backed up, often by actual facts such as wage gap lies.  Further, EDK’s argument essentially suggests that because there is some girl out there smarter or stronger than me, that I am therefore not stronger than other girls, because I was beat by a girl, its a very circular style of reasoning.

Here is another one about NAWALT you may want to read, Eurdite Dark Knight, https://eruditeknight.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/white-knight-suicidal-idea-now-might-have-been-good-then/

Just because you have never loved a woman, or a woman has never loved you, does not mean you should place all your hate towards their sex.’  

If I was a feminist I might shriek ‘You dont know me!!!’ The reality though, is this arugment is entirely emotionally based, with a does of ad hominem thrown in.  Arguing against people that arent capable of detecting fallacies, these type are extremely effective and also in front of a crowd, they work damn well, you can paint the opponent as a loser, and they dont gain the ground back by pointing out its fallacious nature.  What doesnt change is that how does me loving or not being loved at all affect the validity of a claim?  Stated another way, say I make the claim ‘2 +2 =4’ to which someone says ‘just because you arent loved doesnt mean you should place all your faith in your math claim’.  Its completely unrelated.  As anecdotal evidence, I have loved as a matter of fact, I have a lot of love in my life, and I ‘loved’ a girl that fucked me over. (https://eruditeknight.wordpress.com/2013/07/13/the-confession-of-ek-how-i-was-forced-to-take-the-pill/)

Women ARE smart.’

Said like a white knight.  If it was so self-evident why would it need constant repetition?  I’m strong, I really am! I can bench 400, I really can!!!

If you actually believe half of what you say, this grudge and prejudice you hold against them will show right through when interacting. As a result, they will immediately turn their head.

Unfortunately, EDK, this is patently false.  The entire PUA/red pill/ mgtow movements are founded on the truth that treating women as your equal is how you lose, and treating them as inferior is how you win.  I do not condone this reality, but it is a reality none the less. Girls are pedestal-ized their whole life, so when you are nice, you do not register in her mind, you are disposable.  When you are mean, cocky, aggressive you are different to her, you stand out.  On an evolutionary point, the aggressive men are the ones women are selected for to like.  Thats why peacocking works, it acts as if you are a badass, without being called out on it in our pussy society. (https://eruditeknight.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/countdown-5-traits-of-a-man-3-confidence-and-ability/)

‘Underneath all this emotion I sense a hopeless romantic that just wants a woman who can love him as much as he is capable of giving. A good way to find this woman is to start looking for the positive things in people rather than the negative.’

You are right, I actual am a closet romantic, but it is something nearly dead and gone in this world.  Women are not in the right mindset to understand things like gifts, and devotion, their hypergamy is completely unrestrained, so in a previous life a man giving her resources was something she needed and latched onto.  But now with so many suitors, it is ‘deserved’ and expected, and with so many coming in, you are meaningless.  When you are that ‘fake badass’ it confuses them, ‘why doesnt this guy need me?’.  Implicit in this reversal is the ‘guy needing the girl’ which is totally false from a survival perspective, but regardless, it circumvents the misled reality girls subscribe to.  After all, all guys ‘need her’ she is led to believe, so when the guy doesnt need her, it activates the correct ancient pathways of that he must have a glut of resources and can be picky.  Thus…girls are attracted to it.

Girls are currently misled, thats what makes them dangerous now, not that they were always that way

Girls are currently misled, thats what makes them dangerous now, not that they were always that way

 

 

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Even good (?) intentions can be bad

  1. This is an excellent use of informal logic.

    I especially liked the bit that goes:

    ” this arugment is entirely emotionally based, with a does of ad hominem thrown in. Arguing against people that arent capable of detecting fallacies, these type are extremely effective and also in front of a crowd, they work damn well, you can paint the opponent as a loser, and they dont gain the ground back by pointing out its fallacious nature. What doesnt change is that how does me loving or not being loved at all affect the validity of a claim? ”

    That is one advantage to the blog format: it is conducive to the analysis of arguments!

  2. Pingback: Phoenix Wright, Death Note edition | vulture of critique

  3. The Rule: For every rule there is an exception.

    If you have a rule, say, Newton’s Law of Gravitation, and you find an exception, in this case the precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury, you have proved The Rule.

    There is, in fact, nothing wrong with Newton’s rule. It is simply incomplete and thus only holds within certain parameters. There is a more general rule for which Newton’s is a sub-rule. The exception pointed to a deeper understanding of the rules.

  4. The intention was good. Although I do not deny a certain amount of maliciousness put in there for shock value. This was misguided (mostly just wanted to see the response I would get). It is amazing what humans are capable of under the assumption of anonymity. I see this is not just a lashing out in anger at women. Rather it is a philosophical argument. In order to respond I will need time to consider your words.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s