such a thing was never implied, but it's the only way in which the claim can make sense, as the only way in which a less ulterior motive can't exist... if it was implied and was true, then the claim would totally make sense i guess. That's what I meant. I'm actually giving him the benefit of the doubt with that temporary assumption.B1rd wrote:
Are you okay, or are you just not good at formulating arguments? It's weird to use the words "assume" and "assumption" six times in one sentence. But as for the claim, it was never implied that 100% of Muslims were violent, but the fact that Muslims are in general much more violent and oppressive towards women than people in Western countries should be self-evident and is backed by statistics. The claim that women unconsciously wish for brutal male domination is harder to back up, but there have been studies for example that women often have rape fantasies and a lot of women orgasm during rape, so it's plausible enough. Certainly I've heard accounts of the former point by supposed women.
Also sorry but I'm not into arguments in any sort of meaningful way, I treat related stuff only as entertainment. It's all about what information people have, people mostly have valid thinking. As an example, I don't really think Peterson is unable to comprehend percentages and tendencies. I just think he never even STARTED thinking about it in that way. Which makes his assumptions mostly make sense within his own thinking.
Example:
"Are there 2 genders or infinite genders ???"
Me: There are 2 biological sexes(ha got you) and probably an infinite amount of possible gender-related feelings/thoughts. So now you can stop arguing over a word, because regardless of what properties the word has, reality will stay the same.
I am mostly arguing with:
1. Everyone
2. Nobody
3. Both
So why wouldn't I be bad at formulating arguments?
But all of that stuff is unharmful and indirect. I actually hope everyone does that stuff to protect themselves from tendencies while not also harming anyone...B1rd wrote:
Making judgement about demographics based on statistics though is definitely not the same as prosecuting someone for a thought crime. Of course statistics don't give you the right to prosecute someone who hasn't committed a crime, but you can of course choose whom to associate with based on that information. And people do it all the time. For example, you would be more likely to pick up a hitchhiker dressed in a suit and tie rather than a scraggly homeless man, or walk through a well-manicured upper-class suburb that a slum, and such decisions can basically be summed up as making judgement about statistics of which group of people are more likely to be a threat to you or commit some undesirable behaviour.
It's different from stuff like disallowing certain groups from entering a country, and bla bla bla. That does affect them negatively and directly
What would I knowB1rd wrote:
And it's a good observation to note that pretty much all demographics have their own problems, thus it's not good to focus on the problems of one group to the exclusion of all others, such as feminists making out women to always be the victims and men to be the aggressors. Such antagonism can only lead to mutual hostility and not any actual problem-solving. I remember hearing on a radio once going one about how some issue or another was still a "gendered issue" when the percentage of victims was something like 55% women.
