Not trolling.

Not trolling. — Wallows

The alternative isn't much better. You're telling me that you can't spot the logical problem in responding to my point about a supposed social inferiority with a point about absolute inferiority and inferiority in some regards?

Can you spot the logical problem in responding to a point about red cars with a point about plastic cars and some parts of cars?

I'm sorry, I don't see your point here.

I'm sorry, I don't see your point here. — Wallows

Okay. I'm going to stop feeding you now and walk away.

That's fine.

Still the facts are that males are incarcerated disproportionately with respect to females, rendering any projected male typical hierarchy of superiority or inferiority completely and utterly irrelevant to the point in question.

All criminals are human, so it must follow that humans are inferior in some regards?

That's fine. — Wallows

So said the fox in Aesop's fable.

Still the facts are that males are incarcerated disproportionately with respect to females, rendering any projected male typical hierarchy of superiority or inferiority completely and utterly irrelevant to the point in question. — Wallows

The point in question was about a supposed social inferiority. I addressed the point in question. You responded to my point with a fallacy of irrelevance followed by trolling.

Well they aren't perfect if that's what you're trying to say.

I don't know who brought up this notion of male/female superiority or inferiority. It's just dumb.

Might have been me actually...

Males and females are treated differently AND they have different characteristics about them IN GENERAL. This says NOTHING about any PARTICULAR male or female.

All true. No denying that.

Okay. Just make amends and let’s forget it.

I already stated that the superiority inferiority division is irrelevant in this thread, where others thought I was trying to make such a division.

Way to take responsibility. :ok:

Therefore, for the sake of talking about society or culturally, does that fact that prison populations are predominantly male mean or imply that females are socially superior to males? — Wallows

Yeah that was badly worded. Should have read,

Instead of comparing the two, can something be learned from females that makes them less representative of the prison ratio of females to males.

Or something like that.

Have you been stressed about personal issues lately? I ask because you seem un Wallows like recently.

It stopped raining so all the mud is dry and there's nowhere to wallow. Sad. Now I have to wallow in my piss. Ehh.

I was showing concern, but I guess it’s a good sign that you’re joking.

I vote for equity quotas. There should be just as many women as men in prison. If not the system must be sexist!! :D haha!

Yes, it was clickbait and attention seeking.

Isn’t it like 5:41 AM by you? What are you doing up so early on a Sunday? Going to church? LOL

No time to wallow in the mire;
Come on, baby, light my fire,
Try to set the night on fire.

Songwriters: James Morrison / John Dens

Thanks but I am saying Wallows is a provocateur who is just as in, only, interested in causing a commotion with his threads. I'm not against sharing controversial opinions but this thread is a rudderless, free-for-all filled with people provoked by his outrageous title and comments. I think everyone will leave worse for it. I've said my piece and continuing past this point wouldn't benefit anyone. — Judaka

I've been thinking about this discussion and I want to look at it from a different angle. About a year ago, there were a series of discussions on the forum that helped me realize I have a lot of unexamined assumptions and underdeveloped ideas about what men's and women's roles are and how men are seen in our society. I found myself writing things and realizing that I didn't really have a lot to back up my thoughts. I found those discussions really helpful.

Upshot - no matter the quality of the original post and the motives of the poster, this discussion has had a lot of value for me. You've been ranting a bit about banning this and deleting that and the low quality of the forum. The forum means a lot to me. I've found that my writing has improved and I think more clearly since I've participated. Seems like maybe you're expecting more than that. It's probably an unrealistic expectation.

I didn't say this forum was low quality, Brett did. I've posted on about four different forums thus far and this one is by far the most active. Each one has their own weird posters that you really want nothing to do with as well as people who are interesting and have good ideas. For me, I can tell when a post has been thought out, researched and really understood the topic and I can tell when people are just replying for the sake of it. A lot of BC's posts are great because they bring information into it that nobody else will, there are quite a few other good posters here too, even ones that I've yet to agree with.

I'm not against discussing women or men either, even women vs men, it's something which everyone has a lot of opinions about and I'm no different. As S said though, this was a clickbait thread which is just trolling people. It was never going to and hasn't created any kind of interesting debate because what is there to even talk about with this kind of OP and title? I'm not going to seriously debate that topic with anyone.

I post in philosophy forums for three reasons:
1. Improve my writing/Expression of ideas
2. See what kind of criticism people have for my ideas/How well I can respond to that criticism
3. Learning to listen to others and respond appropriately (in a way they accept).

1 and 3 are deceptively difficult, especially when you want to post without proofreading and spending too much time writing comments. 2 is hard, miscommunication occurs all the time and people are dealing with very different perspectives than me. I have to be the judge for whether the criticism was valid and whether I responded well, which requires me to be as impartial as I can be. It's all worth my time though and I'm glad forums like these exist.

I think miscommunication is built into the medium. Its an unfortunate trade-off, the vast exposure to different people/ideas/perspectives but via a medium that depends entirely on a very limited slice of how people communicate. (Ive read the words we use account for as little as 7% of communication we do, depending on the study)

I agree but I mostly think miscommunication occurs due to poor reading skills. Also assumptions and having an understanding of what someone means that goes beyond what they've written, which happens for a variety of reasons. I often re-read posts a week later and notice a word or two that I skipped over which pretty much completely changes what someone wrote and I'm sure they read my response and not understanding why I wrote it. Again, all deceptively difficult and I'd be immediately sceptical of anyone who thinks they're innocent of it.

Ya, I hear ya. Thats what I meant by the problematic medium, it lends itself to the assumptions etc. Im certainly guilty of it myself. The misread tone of a post is important too, where someone gets defensive for no intended reason. Semantics seem to be at the core of most disagreement here. Talking about the same thing but using different words for the same concepts.

Shesh, I'm sorry if this thread came off as trolling or clickbait. Isn't it the role of the "philosopher" (which I at least try to be), to ensure that the reader or audience isn't all comfortable and jolly?

Fwiw, I don't quite understand why people are calling this thread trolling or clickbait either besides their apparent unease with the subject matter.

:blush: