What Do Men Think It Means To Be A Man?

[laughing dog]

No, it really can't.

We disagree. Talking about what men think it means to be a man does not require any discussion about Islam and terrorism, regardless of any underlying deeper philosophical principles. Logically, I can advocate that men ought to speak out against men sexually harassing/assaulting women and refuse to advocate that Muslims speak out against terrorism. And that has absolutely nothing to do with my position about men speaking out against men who sexually harasss/abuse.

You can do that, sure. But the question about muslims and terrorism gets to the question of why you do that. It could be tribal. It could be reactionary. It could be prejudice. Or it could be a reasoned and consistent principle in action. Jarhyn has shown his/hers to be the latter. Toni's remains unclear, and no amount of hiding behind her skirt or your barking at us changes that. We still see her.

The question of why one does have a particular view is irrelevant to the OP and the actual discussion. Nor does it matter to the issue.

No amount of your adolescent (and misogynistic) insults or sniping straw men changes that.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, you can't, not if you advocate for the use of rational thought rather than emotional appeal... or maybe you can produce a philosophical principle that doesn't induct the other classes, but I have my doubts. So go for it: present the philosophical basis for this claim that doesn't induct the other cases.

But a discussion of one thing doesn't necessarily translate into a discussion of all things. To use your comparison to muslims, for instance, a person might be of the opinion that the cultural and social domination of men creates a greater onus on the group as a whole to take a more proactive role in regards to oppression and bigotry by parts of that group which doesn't have a comparable situation amongst muslims as a group. Or they may not give much of a rat's ass about talking about muslims on a given day which is why they posted in a thread about men and didn't post in a thread about muslims, so your comparison is irrelevant to any subject they have an interest in discussing.

A discussion of one thing very much extends to the corollaries of those statements. If the apparent corollaries of a position are unacceptable, then the position itself is untenable without a very solid reason as to why the one case is special. Otherwise it is special pleading.

 

[laughing dog]

No, you can't, not if you advocate for the use of rational thought rather than emotional appeal... or maybe you can produce a philosophical principle that doesn't induct the other classes, but I have my doubts. So go for it: present the philosophical basis for this claim that doesn't induct the other cases.

Sexual harassment/abuse is a violation of a basic human right that also serves no higher purpose. Since men tend to perpetrate most of the sexual harassment/abuse, they should speak out against this violation of a basic human right.

Terrorism is also a violation of a basic human right, but sometimes terrorism serves some higher purpose (i.e. freedom fighters are usually terrorists to their opponents). Muslims may not wish to speak out against Islamic terrorism when that terrorism serves a higher purpose in their view.

The 2nd argument has absolutely nothing to do with the 1st.

In my view, your position is unnecessarily narrow in its scope.

You have provided nothing o establish why, just because (some men) perpetrate abuse that (men in particular) have a duty to fight it. You have presented a non-sequitur. Good job. Try again.

I am sorry, I thought it was obvious people have a duty to speak out against violations of basic human rights that serve no higher purpose. That is a premise -something that does not require a deeper philosophical basis.

BTW, an incomplete argument or an argument one does not understand is not necessarily a non-sequitur. That is an important distinction for a rational rather than an emotional discussion.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No, you can't, not if you advocate for the use of rational thought rather than emotional appeal... or maybe you can produce a philosophical principle that doesn't induct the other classes, but I have my doubts. So go for it: present the philosophical basis for this claim that doesn't induct the other cases.

But a discussion of one thing doesn't necessarily translate into a discussion of all things. To use your comparison to muslims, for instance, a person might be of the opinion that the cultural and social domination of men creates a greater onus on the group as a whole to take a more proactive role in regards to oppression and bigotry by parts of that group which doesn't have a comparable situation amongst muslims as a group. Or they may not give much of a rat's ass about talking about muslims on a given day which is why they posted in a thread about men and didn't post in a thread about muslims, so your comparison is irrelevant to any subject they have an interest in discussing.

But the question is then WHY they hold the position that they do. If men have a special responsibility to speak up for Women, WHY do they? Why should anybody accept that view? We would hope it comes from a deeper principle of fairness and we are perfectly reasonable in exploring that. By setting the Muslim comparison above by referencing an argument that men have cultural domination and muslim's don't, you are doing exactly this as well.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The question of why one does have a particular view is irrelevant to the OP and the actual discussion. Nor does it matter to the issue.

The reasons and arguments for a position on a topic holds no relevance to the discussion of the topic? What? Yes, it does matter to the issue. It is vital to the issue.

No amount of your adolescent (and misogynistic) insults or sniping straw men changes that.

Does this continued bullying make the dogs reasonableness plummet even lower?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, you can't, not if you advocate for the use of rational thought rather than emotional appeal... or maybe you can produce a philosophical principle that doesn't induct the other classes, but I have my doubts. So go for it: present the philosophical basis for this claim that doesn't induct the other cases.

But a discussion of one thing doesn't necessarily translate into a discussion of all things. To use your comparison to muslims, for instance, a person might be of the opinion that the cultural and social domination of men creates a greater onus on the group as a whole to take a more proactive role in regards to oppression and bigotry by parts of that group which doesn't have a comparable situation amongst muslims as a group. Or they may not give much of a rat's ass about talking about muslims on a given day which is why they posted in a thread about men and didn't post in a thread about muslims, so your comparison is irrelevant to any subject they have an interest in discussing.

A discussion of one thing very much extends to the corollaries of those statements. If the apparent corollaries of a position are unacceptable, then the position itself is untenable without a very solid reason as to why the one case is special. Otherwise it isn't special pleading.

Or it's a case of not giving a shit about discussing those corollaries because someone joined a thread about one topic and isn't in the mood to talk about some other topic.

"Men do X"
"What about muslims doing Y?"
"I'm talking about men"
"Ya, but Y is related to X"
"So what? That's not what I'm talking about"
"STOP DODGING THE QUESTION!!!!"

It's not a case of dodging the question, it's a case of not really caring about it and not agreeing with you about how profound and clever your arguments are. If you see a relation then fine. If someone else either disagrees with you about the relation or just has no interest in that relationship then drop it and move on. People will talk about what they care about, not what you care about.

 

[Jarhyn]

You can do that, sure. But the question about muslims and terrorism gets to the question of why you do that. It could be tribal. It could be reactionary. It could be prejudice. Or it could be a reasoned and consistent principle in action. Jarhyn has shown his/hers to be the latter. Toni's remains unclear, and no amount of hiding behind her skirt or your barking at us changes that. We still see her.

The question of why one does have a particular view is irrelevant to the OP and the actual discussion. Nor does it matter to the issue.

No amount of your adolescent (and misogynistic) insults or sniping straw men changes that.

Why one holds a position, the principles the position is based on, are absolutely and entirely relevant to the discussion of whether their positions are reasonable. For instance if I believe the earth is round because I like spheres, that means that my position on re shape of the earth is nonsensical, and that my views are NOT rational or reasonable. It means I can't defend or even really talk about my position, because I don't really have one, I merely have a claim I cannot substantiate. Unsubstantiated claims in this discussion are worthless to the discussion.

 

[laughing dog]

The question of why one does have a particular view is irrelevant to the OP and the actual discussion. Nor does it matter to the issue.

The reasons and arguments for a position on a topic holds no relevance to the discussion of the topic? What? Yes, it does matter to the issue. It is vital to the issue.

Whether a position is good or not does not depend on underlying rationale of the person advocating it. For example, the content of your persistent straw man about bullying and hiding behind skirts does not depend on your motivation or beliefs.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Except that philosophical principles need not be either or sane or internally consistent.

However, the extent to which they possess or lack those qualities has much to do with my own assessment of their values. I hold that part of critical thinking is examining the underlying reasoning behind something which seems sensible in order to determine if it's actually sensible, or simply arbitrary. YMMV.

 

[laughing dog]

You can do that, sure. But the question about muslims and terrorism gets to the question of why you do that. It could be tribal. It could be reactionary. It could be prejudice. Or it could be a reasoned and consistent principle in action. Jarhyn has shown his/hers to be the latter. Toni's remains unclear, and no amount of hiding behind her skirt or your barking at us changes that. We still see her.

The question of why one does have a particular view is irrelevant to the OP and the actual discussion. Nor does it matter to the issue.

No amount of your adolescent (and misogynistic) insults or sniping straw men changes that.

Why one holds a position, the principles the position is based on, are absolutely and entirely relevant to the discussion of whether their positions are reasonable. For instance if I believe the earth is round because I like spheres, that means that my position on re shape of the earth is nonsensical, and that my views are NOT rational or reasonable.

The reason one believes the earth is round does not affect whether the earth is round.

It means I can't defend or even really talk about my position, because I don't really have one, I merely have a claim I cannot substantiate.

Wrong. The position is not grounded in physical fact, but one can talk about.

Unsubstantiated claims in this discussion are worthless to the discussion.

Then you are tacitly admitting that the entire ganging up on one poster for refusing to adequately address a straw man question in the name of an irrelevant "logical consistency" is worthless to the discussion about the OP.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The reasons and arguments for a position on a topic holds no relevance to the discussion of the topic? What? Yes, it does matter to the issue. It is vital to the issue.

Whether a position is good or not does not depend on underlying rationale of the person advocating it.

A broken clock is right twice a day. That doesn't mean it isn't broken or that you should use it to tell the time.

 

[laughing dog]

Except that philosophical principles need not be either or sane or internally consistent.

However, the extent to which they possess or lack those qualities has much to do with my own assessment of their values. I hold that part of critical thinking is examining the underlying reasoning behind something which seems sensible in order to determine if it's actually sensible, or simply arbitrary. YMMV.

I absolutely agree. My point is that mandating some philosophical principle underlie an argument is not very useful for distinguishing whether there is an actual argument or not.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Naw, it's all good, brotha. Your heart was in the right place.

Ok everyone, GROUP HUG!

 

[laughing dog]

To return to the OP topic, growing up, I was pointed to lots of alleged role models - fictional and real - for manhood: John Wayne, Desi Arnaz, Ward Cleaver, Sandy Koufax and Atticus Finch. The traits and characteristics that I gleaned from these characters and people that I thought represented manhood were kindness, respect for other persons, a bit of reticence in the face of trouble, and a drive to do what is right.

Now, I know that is not restricted to men. I'd add that men should respect women and realize that a woman's sexuality is not for men but for the woman.

 

[Jarhyn]

Except that philosophical principles need not be either or sane or internally consistent.

However, the extent to which they possess or lack those qualities has much to do with my own assessment of their values. I hold that part of critical thinking is examining the underlying reasoning behind something which seems sensible in order to determine if it's actually sensible, or simply arbitrary. YMMV.

I absolutely agree. My point is that mandating some philosophical principle underlie an argument is not very useful for distinguishing whether there is an actual argument or not.

Are you kidding? The existence of underlying philosophical principle is definitional of whether someone has 'an actual argument or not' with respect to proclaimed ethical rules.

 

[ruby sparks]

No, you can't, not if you advocate for the use of rational thought rather than emotional appeal... or maybe you can produce a philosophical principle that doesn't induct the other classes, but I have my doubts. So go for it: present the philosophical basis for this claim that doesn't induct the other cases.

Sexual harassment/abuse is a violation of a basic human right that also serves no higher purpose. Since men tend to perpetrate most of the sexual harassment/abuse, they should speak out against this violation of a basic human right.

Terrorism is also a violation of a basic human right, but sometimes terrorism serves some higher purpose (i.e. freedom fighters are usually terrorists to their opponents). Muslims may not wish to speak out against Islamic terrorism when that terrorism serves a higher purpose in their view.

The 2nd argument has absolutely nothing to do with the 1st.

In my view, your position is unnecessarily narrow in its scope.

You have provided nothing to establish why, just because (some men) perpetrate abuse that (men in particular) have a duty to fight it. You have presented a non-sequitur. Good job. Try again.

Hang on. Hadn't we broadly agreed that men should denounce abuse perpetrated by men? Now I'm confused.

Actually, I was just about to ask you about this. Well, specifically about the degrees of ought that are involved. I am fairly clear and happy with what I will call, 'the rule' raised here (about the moderate non-offending majority denouncing the offending minority in their group). I agree that by and large (I'm sure there are exceptions as there are with most things) this is a 'good' rule.

It's when it comes to the non-offending majority being held accountable for, being seen as responsible for and as a consequence being expected to apologise for the attitudes and actions of an offending group minority that I find myself flip-flopping. One minute I agree with it and the next I don't.

To analogise, and hey let's use muslims as an analogy again, Christoper Hitchins, among others, was, I believe, of the opinion (and many atheists agreed with him) that moderate muslims provide cover for islamic extremists. He was therefore clearly of the view that the moderate majority were to some extent accountable/responsible for the actions of the offending minority in their 'group' (muslims). I was always dubious about this view, even though I heard it promoted quite regularly at various secular/atheist internet sites. And, to be honest, I don't think my reservations derive from any tiptoeing around muslims, or theists generally. It just struck me as awry.

So, I'm wondering if it similarly awry to extend 'oughts' in the case of men beyond merely saying 'it would be helpful if you did decry (and perhaps step up and fight) the offenders in your group' to 'you should do these things because you are in some way responsible'.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that when it is said that men should denounce such things, it is necessarily or always implied that they should do it because they are in some way responsible. But the words 'apologise' and 'responsibility' have at least gotten a mention here and I'm just interested to explore, not least because I flip flop.


PS LD. Good point. I personally think we could add your observation about higher purpose to the one about underdogs*. And I suppose they are not unrelated. And in fact both may be related to the idea that sympathies come into play for all 'sides' (as in 'I won't be too hard on the moderates in group X, of which I am not a member, who don't denounce the offenders in their own group, because I sympathise with the plight of group X generally' and 'I won't be too hard on the offenders in group X, of which I am a member, because I sympathise with their cause even if not their methods')


* And prevalence.

 

[laughing dog]

I absolutely agree. My point is that mandating some philosophical principle underlie an argument is not very useful for distinguishing whether there is an actual argument or not.

Are you kidding? The existence of underlying philosophical principle is definitional of whether someone has 'an actual argument or not' with respect to proclaimed ethical rules.

Show me an ethical argument that does not have some underlying philosophical principle.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Except that philosophical principles need not be either or sane or internally consistent.

However, the extent to which they possess or lack those qualities has much to do with my own assessment of their values. I hold that part of critical thinking is examining the underlying reasoning behind something which seems sensible in order to determine if it's actually sensible, or simply arbitrary. YMMV.

I absolutely agree. My point is that mandating some philosophical principle underlie an argument is not very useful for distinguishing whether there is an actual argument or not.

Fair enough. We disagree that a logical substrate should exist for this sort of imperative, then. If I'm told I ought to behave in a particular way (i.e. publicly decry something that I didn't do) I generally ask why I should follow that imperative. (I don't ask in this case, because 1) I was myself sexually abused as a toddler and speak up against it already, and 2) it would seem that any decent person would decry it, and I consider myself decent.)

I find value in learning why people feel the way they do, and seeing how globally they enact the precepts underlying a particular issue. If I, as a Republican (I'm not, just as an example) spend five years criticizing homosexuals for "sexual deviance", fall silent when, say, a Republican judicial nominee faces credible charges of sexual assault, what does that tell you about the basis and coherence of my views? You would rightly judge my criticism to be based not in principle. And that would likely devalue any criticism of any sexual "deviancy" going forward.

I think asking after the principles which undergird a position is vital to assessing its value to me. Part of that is seeing how important this or that principle is to the person espousing it.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

To return to the OP topic, growing up, I was pointed to lots of alleged role models - fictional and real - for manhood: John Wayne, Desi Arnaz, Ward Cleaver, Sandy Koufax and Atticus Finch. The traits and characteristics that I gleaned from these characters and people that I thought represented manhood were kindness, respect for other persons, a bit of reticence in the face of trouble, and a drive to do what is right.

Now, I know that is not restricted to men. I'd add that men should respect women and realize that a woman's sexuality is not for men but for the woman.

My father taught me that being a man called for:

1) Honesty, honor, and integrity.
2) Self-reliance as much as possible, and being hard-working.
3) Never striking a woman.

Only the last value was verbalized. The first two were unspoken, but exemplified.

 

[laughing dog]

I absolutely agree. My point is that mandating some philosophical principle underlie an argument is not very useful for distinguishing whether there is an actual argument or not.

Fair enough. We disagree that a logical substrate should exist for this sort of imperative, then. If I'm told I ought to behave in a particular way (i.e. publicly decry something that I didn't do) I generally ask why I should follow that imperative.

But the rationale for following that imperative does not usually depend on what someone thinks ought to happen in some other case. And, one can give a rationale without actually advocating the rationale. As you point out, any decent person should speak out against sexual abuse/harassment. I don't think that requires a deep philosophical rationale in order to adopt as some sort of behaviorial guideline. And I don't think my view on whether Muslims should speak out against Islamic terrorism has anything to do with whether my dictum based on your observation is a good rule to adopt or follow.

I am sorry to hear about your history. No one should ever have to deal with that.