Particularly distressing to see Scott describe men's rights as a "made-up, reactionary concept". Not unusual - men's requests for fairness have been scoffed at for at least 50 years - but saddening.
The generally pointless, time-wasting semantic debates that tend to devolve into motte-and-bailey or no-true-Scotsman arguments might be avoided if society just had a healthy respect for non-identification. It should almost never be controversial to not identify with a label; someone who doesn't identify with anti-communism or antifa can't be reasonably suspected thereby of being a communist or fascist, respectively. Complaints that one's issues with an ideology are mere nitpicks aren't really persuasive. As a general rule, it is reasonable for people to shy away from brand-name ideologies for the sake precision and nuance in expounding their views.
"Women can abort a child she does not want, but a man cannot legally refuse to fund a child he does not want."
A man can not abort a child because men don't have an uterus (cis men at least). But after the child is born, both men and women cannot legally refuse to pay child support. Child support laws are not gendered. If Britney Spears has a child with an unemployed man and after 3 days she leaves her child, the father can charge Britney Spears for child support. You are wrong to call child support laws oppressive to men, Bryan.
And of course there are orders of magnitude differences in being not allowed to have an abortion and not allowed to skip child support (which no gender is anyway).
What I said was is that child support laws are not gendered and therefore not oppressive to men. Do you think a mother who earns more than the father has a right to leave her kid and not pay child support?
A mother who earns more money than the father has obviously not the right to leave the kid and not pay child support. You know that.
Mothers can not abandon their child at a hospital. What are you talking about? If it's about safe haven laws, these are for both genders too. If one parent makes clear that he/she doesn't want to take care of the child, the other parent is allowed to put the child in a safe haven.
Women are by law obligated to pay child support, just like men. Because men earn more money, men pay more child support than women, if you wanted to hear this so badly. So the law is not oppressive to men, it's just that men earn more money. Calling child support laws anti-male is like calling tax laws anti-white and then asking "Do you really think blacks pay as much taxes as whites?"
Your statement implies that women abort children only because they can’t afford it or don’t want to pay for it. Does having to pay for a child that has already been born ever cause a man to pee their pants every time they sneeze for the rest of their life? Or resulted in them receiving an episiotomy?
“To be honest, I don’t talk to people who talk this way. I don’t think Scott should talk to them either. They’re a lost cause. I am happy to converse with almost anyone who wants to politely exchange ideas, but arguing with hysterical fanatics is futile.”
In hindsight, this is why it was a waste of time to do the last round table discussion you did on NPR.
I think if a stereotype accuracy holds for a negative view for a group of foreigners (e.g., "People from X country are more prone to crime", and when you look at the data they indeed do commit significantly more crime), then you can say that people who are skeptical of X people are not totally irrational, they have a justified prejudice against them.
Tho I can guess how Caplan would reply to this (which would involve probability and trait distribution calculations).
There are many asshole vegans online (and in the real world)*.
Bryan's view of feminism would be like saying, "People who call themselves vegan are mean to me and friends on Twitter. Therefore, just ignore all the issues of factory farming."
*As I talk about in the "The End of Veganism" section here:
Particularly distressing to see Scott describe men's rights as a "made-up, reactionary concept". Not unusual - men's requests for fairness have been scoffed at for at least 50 years - but saddening.
The generally pointless, time-wasting semantic debates that tend to devolve into motte-and-bailey or no-true-Scotsman arguments might be avoided if society just had a healthy respect for non-identification. It should almost never be controversial to not identify with a label; someone who doesn't identify with anti-communism or antifa can't be reasonably suspected thereby of being a communist or fascist, respectively. Complaints that one's issues with an ideology are mere nitpicks aren't really persuasive. As a general rule, it is reasonable for people to shy away from brand-name ideologies for the sake precision and nuance in expounding their views.
"Women can abort a child she does not want, but a man cannot legally refuse to fund a child he does not want."
A man can not abort a child because men don't have an uterus (cis men at least). But after the child is born, both men and women cannot legally refuse to pay child support. Child support laws are not gendered. If Britney Spears has a child with an unemployed man and after 3 days she leaves her child, the father can charge Britney Spears for child support. You are wrong to call child support laws oppressive to men, Bryan.
And of course there are orders of magnitude differences in being not allowed to have an abortion and not allowed to skip child support (which no gender is anyway).
So...are you seriously trying to say that women are obligated to pay child support as much or more than men?
What I said was is that child support laws are not gendered and therefore not oppressive to men. Do you think a mother who earns more than the father has a right to leave her kid and not pay child support?
Yes, the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy and not pay child support for 18 years. Even if the father thinks she's murdering his child.
If the mother does give birth and then changes her mind, she can abandon the baby at a hospital and not pay child support.
A mother who earns more money than the father has obviously not the right to leave the kid and not pay child support. You know that.
Mothers can not abandon their child at a hospital. What are you talking about? If it's about safe haven laws, these are for both genders too. If one parent makes clear that he/she doesn't want to take care of the child, the other parent is allowed to put the child in a safe haven.
You have completely dodged my question.
Women are by law obligated to pay child support, just like men. Because men earn more money, men pay more child support than women, if you wanted to hear this so badly. So the law is not oppressive to men, it's just that men earn more money. Calling child support laws anti-male is like calling tax laws anti-white and then asking "Do you really think blacks pay as much taxes as whites?"
Your statement implies that women abort children only because they can’t afford it or don’t want to pay for it. Does having to pay for a child that has already been born ever cause a man to pee their pants every time they sneeze for the rest of their life? Or resulted in them receiving an episiotomy?
I don't think you want to hang the right to choose on those.
Actually I do want to hang the right to choose on bodily autonomy. That should be the only thing that matters.
“To be honest, I don’t talk to people who talk this way. I don’t think Scott should talk to them either. They’re a lost cause. I am happy to converse with almost anyone who wants to politely exchange ideas, but arguing with hysterical fanatics is futile.”
In hindsight, this is why it was a waste of time to do the last round table discussion you did on NPR.
Professor Caplan: Is there a time or place, now or ever, in which xenophobia is a rational and reasonable response?
Xenomorphs. Definitely in that case, so there is at least one!
:)
I think if a stereotype accuracy holds for a negative view for a group of foreigners (e.g., "People from X country are more prone to crime", and when you look at the data they indeed do commit significantly more crime), then you can say that people who are skeptical of X people are not totally irrational, they have a justified prejudice against them.
Tho I can guess how Caplan would reply to this (which would involve probability and trait distribution calculations).
I finally came up with the analogy I've wanted.
There are many asshole vegans online (and in the real world)*.
Bryan's view of feminism would be like saying, "People who call themselves vegan are mean to me and friends on Twitter. Therefore, just ignore all the issues of factory farming."
*As I talk about in the "The End of Veganism" section here:
https://www.losingmyreligions.net/
PS: Thanks to Scott for getting Bryan to engage more thoroughly.
That doesn't seem at all like an honest or thorough engagement with what Bryan is saying.
Yea, unfortunately that's Matt's m.o. it seems. He is consistent, although one can argue whether that is a virtue when one is consistently like that.