Internet Lunatics - RadFems, PUA's, MRA's, MGTOW's, etc.

Yes, a lot do. In fact just recently several hundred were murdered. You'll notice however that this incident has been all but ignored completely.

 

Sorry, are we now including stats and anecdotes from the world outside the US? Perhaps we can talk about how men and women are treated in places like India, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, etc.

 

My previous post (#240, about two categories of murder) was only about the U.S.

Other parts of the world may well be different.

 

Only as a direct reference back to boko haram and the significant difference in the general public response in the US to these two incidents and the value of male vs female lives in general. Two girls get shot? It's the new holocaust, nevermind they were randos and three times as many men were killed. 200 girls get kidnapped? Massive public outcry and nobody even remembers the boys that were burned to death. 400-500 men and boys singled out and exterminated? Barely even mentioned that they were deliberately targeted, quietly passes through the news cycle without any real attention.

The simple inescapable conclusion is that we as a culture just do not value men's lives as much as women's lives.

 

The death of men is never covered in the press. Murder is only *ever* about women, when I watch the news.

Your conclusions show your prejudice.

Your rhetorical devices are truly (and literally) unbelievable.

 

No. The amount and tone of reporting in the US on violent deaths in far-away developing countries depends on axe-to-grind gatekeepers like NGOs.

Back here in the US, the level of media interest in specific murders is directly proportional to the perceived innocence of the victim.

Bluntly, the large majority of male US murder victims are themselves criminals. Two-thirds? Something like that.

(Edit: numerous reports and studies and news items from different cities show 70% to 91% of murder victims had criminal records.)

And, yeah, especially when it comes to the news cycle, we as a culture just do not value the lives of criminals as much as the lives of (perceived) innocents.

Like Trayvon Martin, say.

 

Nine out of ten convicted murderers are men. Damn near nine out of ten convicted criminals are also black. Are you going to seriously argue that this is evidence black people are more violent and criminal than white people instead of evidence of a profoundly prejudiced justice system? You can't have it both ways at the same time, if you want to claim our justice system proves men are more violent than women you must also accept that same logic proves black men are astronomically more violent than white men.

Every time someone seriously looks into crime perpetration, even (or perhaps especially) crimes that many insist are almost exclusively committed by men, they inevitably find that women are just as violent as men and it's only due to biased research and methodology that female perpetrators escape review. Just look at the history of Domestic Violence arrests, as soon as they became mandatory the rate at which women were arrested jumped by 446% and convictions jumped by over 1000%. Do you really pedestalize women so much you think that this same profound bias against recognizing female perpetrators doesn't exist elsewhere? Do you really pedestalize them to such a degree you think they're incapable of that kind of criminal behavior? We already have objective proof that women are a full fifteen times less likely to be incarcerated than men for the same crime, receive prison sentences on average 12% lighter than men for the same crime, and are 20 times less likely to be executed than men for the same crime.

The evidence is overwhelming that women are no less violent than men, but are profoundly privileged in the criminal justice system.

And of course who do we, as a culture, habitually stigmatize and demonize? The poor, blacks, and men. The three demographics that intersect to fill up an overwhelming majority of our prisons.

 

I didn't say murderers, I said criminals. Overall our jails are filled with black men, especially in the South. If you want to claim our justice system proves men are more violent than women you must also accept that same logic proves black men are astronomically more violent or criminal than white men. You can't have this both ways at the same time.

Yes yes yes we've heard this before. You get to do whatever you want, say whatever you want, make whatever point you want and whenever I try to respond everything I say is invalid. You don't even pretend to prove why it's invalid, you just SAY it's wrong or invalid and drop it.

You can make grand sweeping pronouncements condemning men for not valuing life because of the demographics of convicted murderers, but I can't draw on a wealth of empirical data citing no less than three different peer reviewed publications to argue that your claims are based on data that's the result of a prejudiced justice system because it's "unrelated".

Let's walk through that shall we?
1. "Nine out of Ten convicted murderers are men. Men value life the least."
2. "Here are three seperate peer reviewed publications proving that the criminal justice system is staggeringly prejudiced against men, and women are lenient, meaning your judgment is based on faulty data."
3. "That's unrelated!"

It's not unrelated, it's DIRECTLY related to the very core of what you said. It proves empirically that the very core piece of data you based your entire statement on was invalid. You can't possibly get more related than that. But of course it's not about being related, it's about whether or not it agrees with you. Because, once again, as always, anything that disagrees with you is simply handwaved away as invalid for some asinine reason or another without any hard logic to back it up. It contradicts you, therefore it MUST be invalid.

Your blatant double standards are getting tiring Baraku. You aren't even pretending to find excuses for them anymore.

 

NOTE WELL that I was writing about murder victims, not murderers. The victims are counted much more accurately.

But it is a perfectly valid observation that, in the US, black men as a group are significantly more violent than the rest of the population. And this effect cannot be explained by disparate treatment in the criminal justice system.

It's also accurate to say that US citizens, as a group, are more violent than EU citizens, by a very wide margin. That doesn't tell you anything about individual Americans or Europeans.

Outside the domestic violence arena, this is nonsensical. What portion of armed robberies are committed by women? What portion of murder-suicides or rape-murders? The numbers are tiny.

 

@Shadowex3, here's the question...

What would you like the World to look like and how do you propose it be achieved?

 

In what timeframe and related to what? The answer could be anything from West Wing to Star Trek. Do you want everything down to specific laws, tax policies, educational policies and curriculums? Or do you want a more general answer like "more literacy"? I have an assignment this semester that's basically your question solely in the realm of American national security policy and on that narrow topic alone we're all writing about six thousand words.

In the shortest broadest sense I'd like to see less crime and poverty along with more equality and prosperity. The best way imho to get that is IP law reform, tax reform, a functioning social safety net, changes to labor laws bringing us more in line with other civilized countries, and education reform that includes more music, art, literature, and other cultural factors than just hammering on football and cargo cult memorization based math.

If you're referring to gender politics in general I want what the "nicer" branches of feminism say they want, even though their actions continue to prove the opposite. The difference is I propose dealing with things rationally, based on facts and evidence, and to tie all that together focusing on objectively measurable goals instead of deliberate politician-speak that leaves room for endless NATO style mission-creep and goalpost moving. Any theories driven by that evidence must be logically sound and disprovable in the event that efforts are succesful and circumstances change.

And my entire point was that those numbers aren't trustworthy.

 

And now you're back to accusing me of what you're currently doing. Anyone reading this thread will notice two things about your posts Baraka:
1. You rely almost solely on simply asserting that I'm wrong, or that anything I say is invalid.
2. You never actually back up any of the attacks you fire off at me, or prove any of the claims you make.

You have virtually always used this or some other dishonest and underhanded tactic to handwave away anything I say as invalid without ever actually addressing or rebutting it, let alone actually supporting your own claims instead of simply taking them as correct by default. One of your favorite tricks I've noticed, one which has bitten you in the ass this time due to your overuse of it, is saying something and then no matter how I respond claiming that's not what you meant and I'm misrepresenting you. Of course you never actually say what you did mean, because then you would be stuck having to actually make an honest argument instead of simply going "Everything you say is invalid Just Because".

The thing is this time you've gone too far. There's simply no way you can weasel your way out of this, you wrote two incredibly plain sentences and I responded to them. They're just too simple for you to play musical meanings this time.

You are right though. Constant manipulation and personal attacks speaks volumes. And anyone who reads this as an outsider will see I'm the one who makes direct statements, backs up his claims, and relies on facts, evidence, and proof instead of doing nothing but saying "Your post is invalid. You're misrepresenting me. You're manipulating things. You're a liar. You're wrong because I say so."

Then again in a sad way I can understand why you do this. The last time you made the mistake of actually saying something of substance you said something stupid and sexist, and I slapped you down with no less than three different peer-reviewed publications that undermined the very foundations of your claim. So now you're right back to playing games and just asserting "You're wrong Just Because".

 

It's ok, really. I know how hard this is for you.

 

Did you take debate in college or high school? Or just spent a loooot of time on internet forums..? Just wondering.