The nature of trade is surplus goods. What you are describing is the nature of con men.
The nature of trade is getting something you want for something you don't, or at least for something you want less. That is not the nature of con men - although believing in something like rights would certainly lead you to think such a way. It's the nature of men. No "con" necessary.
There is nothing inherently wrong about giving up something you dislike in favor of something you do; your body does it every time it takes a dump or processes protein. If both parties in the trade end up giving away nothing in exchange for something, what's the problem? Who got conned? They're both satisfied. But, because you have this idea that value is more than a human invention, you find evil within said exchange; not because any suffering has occurred, but because it goes against what you believe. And fallot did not say rights are OWNED, he said they are OWED.
There's this logical flaw about the "no rights" argument that irks me. If there are no rights then what gives you the right to tell people they have no rights? We're just talking about different values here.
Logical flaw? Where? If there are no rights, nothing I tell people is subject to the concept. It's only a logical flaw so long as there are rights. I don't need the right to do anything I do - I am a man. I will do as I do, and there will be consequences deriving from those actions, which will inspire others to act in turn, leading to more consequences still, etc., etc. At no point does any of this need to be justified - it just is. It can be explained, but that's about it.
The only logical flaw is thinking that rights exist "just because." And although your attempt to prove their existence based on an innate human sense of fairness was noble, it does not at all reflect the general view of rights and you know it. Aside from that, it was also fruitless, because humans are innately wrong about all sorts of things; you describe nothing more than a failure of perception, one along the lines of thinking the world is flat because it that's how it looks to the naked eye. You are literally trying to tell me that "because we feel something is real, it is." I find you to be one of the better posters here, and more often than not I agree with you. Even when I don't, I never have a problem respecting you. In fact, I respect you too much to give this argument any sort of serious consideration. Get real.
If you were claiming that rights were God-given, I would still have to disagree but at least your position would be logically sound. Saying that "they only exist in our mind" cannot be rationally followed by "they still exist." THAT is a logical flaw; you know what another term is for something that exists only in the mind? Imaginary. Yes, this affects human behavior - nobody ever said otherwise. No, it is not real - mostly because humans cannot create things telekinetically. As far as I know.
You shouldn't treat different things as if they are the same, but the problem here is that treating things (women) differently usually meant treating them not as well (in the past). What is sick about women wanting to be treated fairly in society? Honestly I don't think we're going to agree so I think we should just drop this part.
So do you wish to treat them fairly or unfairly? You accept that they are different, yet also say that it's not fair to treat them as if they are. "Fair" doesn't mean "the same." If you want to treat women UNfairly, treat them as you would treat men. Of course, no feminist ACTUALLY wants this - they want men and women to be treated the same, but once they find out how men actually interact with each other, it offends them, and so they must change men's behavior to fall in line with how they actually want to be treated, which is "as women." Which doesn't even touch on the fact that a man who takes pride in his nature AS A MAN would never, ever, treat a women the same way he treats a man. Doing so is essentially a tacit approval of the idea that the concept of femininity is worthless.
No. Helpless people need to be done away with. They can't be helped. Why would you want to even bother? Assist those who are capable to be the best.
This is not how you run a society. You claim membership to an ideology that CLAIMS to seek maximization of everyone's (i.e., women's) potential; and yet drop something like this, showing that you care little for what is purportedly the driving motivation behind all sorts of -isms, including feminism. The best possible outcome is not to eliminate defects, but to turn them into successes. I know this is not usually possible, but my point is regarding your outlook.
Lol, no, it doesn't. Not for long anyway.
It doesn't, and yet it does? Although I did read the rest of your paragraph, its inclusion seems completely unnecessary when you start off contradicting your own argument. We'll see how "not long" it takes Saudi Arabia to actually end, once it ends. Until then, the fact is, that nation is successful whereas others in similarly fortunate situations are not. This is true no matter how much it bothers you.
Nope, but you will see the kids dying in the African mud hut. They don't have the fucking energy to misbehave. Not growing up to be drug addicts? Well I suppose in Ethiopia, where arranged marriages are still popular, we can just ignore the glue and paint huffing problems, along with the khat (stuff's legal but it's still a problem). That's just one example.
They have tremendous energy, actually. I doubt you have actual experience living among such people, because if you did you would not be saying something so visibly false.
What about a lifetime of resentment if your parents paired you up with a complete airhead? What if your arranged husband likes to get drunk and assault you?
Those societies have just as many problems. Not that I don't agree that liberal societies produce bad children, but I would avoid such sweeping generalizations in the future, they do not lend credence to your arguments.
Like I said: interact with people who actually live these lives. Get as far away from Western influence as you can. Based on your positions in this thread, I assure you that you will be shocked at the levels of contentment you discover. Don't rely on emotional movie plots or political gambits to guide your view of worlds different from our own.
Yeah, but who ultimately persuaded those in power to give women the vote? Women. I don't think voting should be for everyone, in fact I think most people shouldn't be allowed to vote (not many of them give a shit anyway, so I don't see how this would be a problem). But the point is, I don't know if you're seeing a middle ground here. You seem to think column A is feminazi uberliberal retard, and column B is ideal meek subservient woman. Correct me if I'm missing something. I would also like to point out what Umbrage said
Women should not be able to vote, but that is only because they first should not be a sizable presence in the workforce, which is a whole other can of worms. Men persuaded each other to give women the vote. The notion that women convinced them to do this is ridiculous. If this were true, and it were also true that women were owed this "right," howcome it took tens of thousands of years to achieve this state? Are you saying that women were too dumb to convince their men in the past? Are you saying that they were so trodden-upon that they were literally incapable of standing up for themselves? Or are you saying that they understood the concept of a division in responsibilities among men and women? I don't follow the (retarded) idea that people in older times were dumber than ourselves, so I'm inclined to follow the latter. Most people follow the middle proposition, which sounds stupid to me, as we're not talking about a small percentage of the population. When people are that beaten-down, they revolt. Men gave women the vote because they benefited from doing so. This is just plain old human nature. If their women in fact convinced them to do this, they did it by convincing them it was for their own benefit. Of course, there is no possible way to convince someone that giving away power for free is beneficial to your own position of power, so there had to be a trade; in exchange for losing power, they were made to feel noble. Nobody gives something for nothing. And even if men had, in fact, given women this privilege for free, out of a true sense of nobility, all that does is show feminism to be completely UNnecessary - because men had more power, and were just in its use.
I don't see columns A or B in women's behavior at all. I see columns A and B in men's views of reality, with women essentially molding themselves somewhere in the field that exists between these two standards. But women act essentially the same everywhere you go - there are varying degrees to which they reinforce their own varying traits, but the primary essence of womanhood I have never seen changed. That is one of the inherent qualities (not "strengths", not "weaknesses") of the female; she is malleable. Ultimately, though, it is still men who set the field on which women play. And this will always be the case. And it is good.