Comments

1. Posted by: Mith on 1/20/2009 3:59 PM
   
   I'm sorry to hear that.
   
   People rarely accept viewpoints they don't agree with. Many people choose a rarely to open the subject truly up to understand it. Most people just choose a side and agrees with that one 100% of the time because they're their expert. If their expert says someone said something they clearly didn't, then they will simply agree out of principal. In many cases, something as logical as simply finding their source and confirming the expert's objectivity doesn't even enter into their minds. I'm afraid I don't know you too well, but from your videos and manner, I suspect that if you're presented a strong argument of someone claiming that someone said that rape and assault were okay, you'd probably confirm it through other means before taking it to heart or there are in fact, sources provided by the writer to ensure that the reader can see that they are telling the truth that you take full advantage of.
   
   Most people that I've met often don't decide to follow up on this method of research in order to verify claims. Furthermore, they also allow their judgement to be tained by the opinion of another. This goes even further south when say, a feminist sees the feminist article, because she will look for the quotes that her fellow feminist used in order to reassure herself that this is the position of the author in question. The other parts immediately either fall of the radar as meaningless dribble or is simply a lie to mislead them, but the only reason they would believe that someone would write an article and lie about the conditions of the actions that one should perform is simply absurd. This in fact, happens a great deal of time for most people; ie, they pick out what they want from an article or book and use it to support or damn the whole thing. Take for example, men who rape their wives (I mean real rape, not the feminist delusion of one). My pastor gave a sermon on how these men would use the bible to condone their actions, that being Colossians 3:18; 'Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, for that is waht you should do as Christians'. They reason that if their wife doesn't have sex with them (no matter what reason), that they are violating the Word of God (I'd be interested to know how Colossians is suddenly the "Word of God"). The pastor however, points out that while the bible suggests that a woman should have sex with her husband, these men ignore the second line; 'Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.'
   
   This happens in many more cases, such as the Phillips (easy punching bag, I know), who take the bible as the literal Word of God (which is not supported by the bible) and that makes it alright for them to claim that all gay people are going to hell. This is despite the fact that when Jesus was asked what was needed for a man to obtain eternal life, Jesus replied with stating only six of the ten commandments...of which are you guessing wasn't there? In fact, Jesus stated the following; Do not commit murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not accuse anyone falsely, respect your father and your mother, and love your neighbor as you love yourself.
   
   People will pick apart what they want to hear so that it reinforces their life style...because doing otherwise scares them - an understandable position for someone who doesn't make the time for these sort of things. They rely upon experts and often choose reliable sources...but they never want to disagree with said person or source as it means that they would have to do one of two things; 1) accept that said person is always wrong because they are not always right or 2) Learn the subject and gain enough knowledge to judge each subject from that person/source on a base by base issue.
   
   Leftists are shown by their experts that feminists are right and so no matter what you bring to the table to prove it, they will simply dismiss it out of hand for the lies that are fed to them like children. So when you bring them this, suggesting that women should do something even if they don't want to, they immediately go into the fantasy setting of how no woman should be forced to do anything. They don't care if its the truth; they just want to hold onto that fantasy world where they get everything they want and the media (at least here in America) reinforces that idea. There was even an article of one woman who divorced her husband because she thought he was boring at the drop of a hat...then went on to devalue marriage, claiming it was the new dating. It pushes the idea that people have a right to be selfish and to do whatever the hell the want, whenever they want, despite personal responsibility. Now, while I agree that someone should have the option of doing what they want within the confines of the law (ignoring silly laws of course), our species got to where it is today by taking personal responsibility for our actions and doing things for the betterment of the group. Of course, why does the media say this? Well, if often follows with something they want to sell you afterwards.
   
   In short, many people will settle into a belief that they want on these subjects because they want to live their lives. They don't sit in a room pondering this stuff on a regular basis...they go out, get drunk, watch sports, and/or go out with friends. Or they take care of their children and work their jobs. This just doesn't fall within their reach fo what they want to do. And they will more often than not, listen to someone who is the loudest and supports their opinion...then reject anyone who disagrees with them. And of course, while this bugs me that someone would willingly just take someone's word on something, I can't help but pity them and feel greater resentment for the one preying uon their ignorance.
   
   May I suggest, that you make a video to educate people on not taking people's word for something. Encourage them to look at both sides of the argument, follow up sources, and look at objective viewpoints with as little bias as possible. If you can get people to click that little switch that gets them to think critically about something, perhaps you might just bring the light to them. Your videos are great and the push positive thinking, but they're letting you do it for them. To take an old saying; "He who gives a man a fish feeds him for a day. He who teaches a man to fish feeds him for a lifetime.'
2. Posted by: Ian on 1/24/2009 8:02 PM
   
   May I suggest, that you make a video to educate people on not taking people's word for something. Encourage them to look at both sides of the argument, follow up sources, and look at objective viewpoints with as little bias as possible.
   <br>
   Perhaps you should have a look over on equalism-activism.com where Mark is being criticized primarily for posting unsubstantiated drivel. He's not really in a position to make a video like you suggest. The basic problem with this nonsense is that he never cites any sources.
3. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 1/24/2009 10:28 PM
   
   Thanks for trolling your way over here to libel me. But if you'll look at some of my material then you will realise that I regularly post sources. Not on everything mind, for things that are purely opinion don't need it. However, my piece for dennis prager contains sources for quotes and relevant phrases are hyperlinked when possible. If you look at many of my videos then you will see a section at the bottom called "sources".
   
   Based on many of the comments you have made, Ian, you appear to be a connsumate liar.
4. Posted by: Ian on 1/24/2009 10:39 PM
   
   I simply made the comment that the criticsim on equalismactivism.com was directed at your lack of reference of any substantive theory, study, or set of facts which supported your claims. That is entirely accurate. You cite your sources for quatiations, but provide no evidence for other substantial claims. The existence of "the pendulum effect" is such a claim. You have described something that is completely fictional, provided a few anecdotes at best, and been completely silent when challenged on that fact.
   
   So, if you want to accuse me of trolling, back up your claims that a) the pendulum effect is anything more than fantasy and b) that the social order in Canada, or more broadly in Western countries, has been completely upended in only 50 years. Please provide something more than anecdotes. All I'd like to see is a thorough analysis, an econometric model, or something similar. I've asked for that on equalismactivism, and now I've asked here. Cite some sources for your claims.
5. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 1/25/2009 1:52 PM
   
   Alright. Let’s stop the squabbling and talk about the issues.
   
   
   “a) the pendulum effect is anything more than fantasy”
   
   Arrogance. I have presented my argument and you dismiss the whole things as fantasy. What do you want me to do? Present it again? Why don’t you tell me which steps are fantasy and then I will reply.
   
   
   “b) that the social order in Canada, or more broadly in Western countries, has been completely upended in only 50 years”
   
   First of all the “in only 50 years” is the logical fallacy of the argument from personal incredulity. Any reason to expect that it can’t be done in 50 years? What is a more realistic number? 100? 1000?
   
   You don’t specify what you mean by “social order” but I assume you are talking about something patriarchal in nature. Something that oppresses women. So here is a source.
   
   http://www.true-equality.net/archive/2008/05/10/men-are-more-oppressed-than-women.aspx
   
   I prove here that men are now more oppressed than women are so consider the social order to be upended.
   
   
   
   
6. Posted by: Ian on 1/25/2009 2:35 PM
   
   Where is the evidence? You make statements like, "This is where feminism has achieved a world where women have no less opportunity than men, can take any degree they want to and choose their own career." This is a substantive claim. this is a claim that needs to be backed up by statistics of some kind. Where are the statistics that support a claim like this?
   
   "The worst effect of this illegitimate phase of the movement is to brainwash the younger members of the group into hating men."
   You justify this statement by referencing a rude email. All you ever cite is anecdotes. Anecdotes, at best, can be used to raise a question, they don't count as evidence to prove a point. It's a simple principle of science / rationality. Each step of the way, when you are constructing an argument, you have to show evidence that it actually happened.
   
   One statistic I've seen you use is the breast / prostate cancer funding issue. It's true, the government spends more money one breast cancer than prostate cancer. Why is that evidence of sexism Are there other possible explanations for the difference and what have you done to eliminate these possibilities. Could it be that our understanding of prostate cancer is less than of breast cancer, so different kinds of research are being funded? How is the money given out? Is it through a central decision maker? What is the criteria they cite for giving out funding? Until you can answer these kinds of questions (and a mere citation of someone who explicitly discusses them is all that's necessary, not the full treatment by you), you haven't made your case.
7. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 1/25/2009 10:49 PM
   
   Ian, you are the quintessential unwise young fool. There is no truth without sources and studies and statistics is there? Your continuing pleads for statistics are just a cognitive device to dismiss all I say without having to think about it. Do you have statistics for everything you believe? What use are statistics to an argument based on logic and common sense. Well, you don’t have any common sense. You accept the feminist position unequivocally and I can tell you that feminists assert their arguments way more than I do. Take this statement.
   
   "This is where feminism has achieved a world where women have no less opportunity than men, can take any degree they want to and choose their own career."
   
   First of all the use of the word “world” is poorly chosen, I am referring to the societies where feminism has acted, primarily the west. As for the rest, can we not assume that if there was a genuine oppression against women, a degree to which they cannot apply, a career to which they cannot apply, then feminism would be trumping this cause?
   
   Which careers can women not apply to? (yeah, yeah – male actor, I trust you’re going to be serious in this). Which degrees, I graduated in 2005 and I can think of none, I can think of no right that men have that women do not but I can think of a bunch that women do have but men do not, and not only I, I’ve asked this question to every critique of my videos that I can and they cannot come up with an example.
   
   Do you still want statistics? Where do I start, shall I look for a home-office report for “university degrees segregated by sex”? Do you think there will be one? There isn’t such a thing because feminism has been so successful in stigmatizing such attitudes that no one would dare, nor is it even a question that it would exist.
   
   Sir, you need to drop your religion of victim theology and faith based beliefs in the various leftist causes and actually look at the world. I have no doubt that you will not heed these words.
   
8. Posted by: Ian on 1/25/2009 11:17 PM
   
   You claim to be a scientific skeptic
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism
   Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism (also spelled scepticism), sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a scientific or practical, epistemological position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence.
   
   Apparently not the case. When I ask you to live up to your claim, you offer a conspiracy theory. The feminist conspiracy has acted to hide the evidence! Yet, you would ridicule alternative medicine advocates or 9/11 truthers who offered the same explanation for the lack of evidence supporting their beliefs.
   
   http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/component/option,com_pubs/Itemid,122/task,show_year/pubId,1709/versionId,15/yearId,166/
   
   Try that link for the data you claim doesn't exist. From the table of contents:
   "Table 3 - All students at UK HE institutions by location of institution, level of study, mode of study, age group and gender analysed by first years and all years."
   
   How is it that I was able to find a source for the data you claimed would never exist in less than five minutes? Now, go do your homework, analyze some statistics and validate you claims. Failing that, you are a lazy conspiracy theorist living in a land of make believe. Of course, someone has likely done the analysis for you if you just know where to look. I'll leave you to figure that out.
9. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 1/26/2009 1:10 AM
   
   Ian. I’ve called you a liar before and I have to again. You lie and lie and lie. You lie about people’s positions. You lie about things you claim they said. You misrepresent arguments that are posted merely a few scrolls above your posts. You libel and lie without hesitation. You cannot view reality. You twist the words of others into unrecognisable and grotesque strawmen.
   
   You claim I talk about feminist conspiracy theories, this is a lie. I clearly talk about sex segregation and you give me some breakdown of gender stats.. These two are not the same but you cannot see it because you have become radicalised by a faith based belief system every bit as dangerous as religion is.
   
   “Failing that, you are a lazy conspiracy theorist living in a land of make believe.”
   
   Look at these words of yours. They are loaded with irony you will never see. You disgust me you piece of filth. Does a person in the light use the tactics of the gutter to bludgeon other human beings? I will never ever reply to your garbage again.
   
10. Posted by: Ian on 1/26/2009 1:31 AM
    
    Coward
11. Posted by: Ian on 1/26/2009 1:34 AM
    
    "Where do I start, shall I look for a home-office report for “university degrees segregated by sex”?"
    
    That is exactly what I pointed you towards. All the data you could ever need to make your case is right there. Or, in the thousands of published papers on that are available. If everything is tilted towards women, the stats will clearly show it.
    
    Sleep well knowing you are a pathetic "truther"
12. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 1/26/2009 3:20 AM
    
    I know I said I wouldn’t reply but hey – I guess it’s my turn to be the liar.
    
    I will not sleep at night because people like you scare me. The mentality you display increases the amount of evil and wrong in this world – and that mentality is bum bum baaaah.. Religious faith based belief systems! Yes, what you apparently rail against. Ain’t it grand?
    
    When I look at a person like you (figuratively speaking) I see someone who is completely unwilling to try and understand what the other person is saying. You’re here to battle for your preconceived religious view of how the world works. There is hardly any difference between your cognitive processes and that of the most ardent believer. Case in point, if you didn’t get what I was trying to say when I talked about segregated by sex then you’re hopeless. Try something for me if you can be honest for just one minute. Look at what I was trying to say there and then try to figure out what that point means.
    
13. Posted by: thestudent09 on 1/31/2009 3:56 AM
    
    argus this troll is not worth your time or anyone elses for that matter. In the eyes of any rational man or woman you have won the argument so theres no point in viewing Ian as anything more than an insect buzzing around your video's
14. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 1/31/2009 12:58 PM
    
    Ah, I know. But it's like being addicted to something you know is bad for you, you still can't resist from time to time. YouTube has helped me form a thick skin and I don't bother with 99% of the annoying people from day to day.
15. Posted by: Mith on 2/5/2009 2:53 AM
    
    Ian said:
    
    "Perhaps you should have a look over on equalism-activism.com where Mark is being criticized primarily for posting unsubstantiated drivel. He's not really in a position to make a video like you suggest. The basic problem with this nonsense is that he never cites any sources."
    
    First off, tossing out EA.com to me and expecting me to care is about as useful as sending the Rational Response Squad to me...well, alright it isn't that bad, but let me make it clear; I don't care what an internet site says about one person. Furthermore, you did not in fact, provide me with that article. I am not going to do your legwork in proving such things, when you attack Argus for apparently doing the same (as you claim).
    
    Second, I am not much of a fan of EA. Do I dislike them? No idea, I don't know them and for all I know, they may (and very possibly do) have a political agenda. I found their recent article concerning the Vatican's choice to not allow the "God probably doesn't exist, stop worrying about it" to be somewhat...well, silly. Yeah, I would say one of the most God influenced areas on the freaking planet is probably not going to want to run something that basically gives the finger to God. And I agree with them. I don't care for the ads either, since I find it a rather at odds form of message, but this isn't the place here. In other words, you should know your audience and you should provide more than one source if you wish to slander someone.
    
    And finally, I've seen a great deal of Argus's videos. I don't always agree with him, but those tend to not be about equality rights and such issues. I don't wish to get up on my high horse now, but I have to say that me being fooled by Argus to believe a load of hogwash is...unlikely. I've already seen most of this stuff he's talking about and spoken to others at length about these issues. I've even argued against a feminist who seemed to think that it was alright for men to suffer discrimination because apparently different women suffered it from different men in the past. In other words, she was sexist. She was saying that one group should be treated in such a way simply because of their gender. And no, I don't mean something that is insurmountable, such as biological issues. I'm talking about men getting shafted even after its proven beyond a doubt that not only did they not rape that woman, but they didn't even come within five miles of that woman on the day she claimed to have been raped. I've already looked into evolution issues through my own means and in fact I have RabidApe, Penn, and James Randi on my subscriptions list on Youtube. The only religious source I have is 5th Watcher, who is simply a phenomenal debator in the field of the debate on the existence of God.
    
    So, to conclude, you need to first provide the required article from EA (by the way, if Argus is such a poor person in regards to the EA's standards, why is he on their link list under skeptisim? Funnny you didn't mention that little tidbit) and you need to start actually lending your audience some credibility in the area of thinking, because I assure you that some of us are more than a match to turn away this drivel.
    
16. Posted by: Mith on 2/5/2009 3:23 AM
    
    Ian said
    
    "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism
    Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism (also spelled scepticism), sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a scientific or practical, epistemological position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence.
    
    Apparently not the case. When I ask you to live up to your claim, you offer a conspiracy theory. The feminist conspiracy has acted to hide the evidence! Yet, you would ridicule alternative medicine advocates or 9/11 truthers who offered the same explanation for the lack of evidence supporting their beliefs."
    
    Um, I'm not sure he's said that they've tried to hide the facts...well, in some cases yes, but it seems to me from his videos and posts that he's more into pointing out how they ignore these facts altogether. I assure you however, if I thought that Argus was nothing more than a drooling conspiracy nut, I wouldn't be hanging around. Now, does he have a few things in common? Yes, he is very passionate about his work and is going against a larger political body. However, that itself is not evidence of him being a conspiracy nut, nor is it something that is in and of itself bad. Now, going to your example, it's a simple strawman and furthermore, I seem to be having a problem finding this Table #3...is there a link you could show me for the actual crunch (numbers) or are you just going to claim something just by pointing to a title? Hey, the RRS calls themselves rational, but does that make them rational? No. No it does not.
    
    Argus said
    
    "You claim I talk about feminist conspiracy theories, this is a lie. I clearly talk about sex segregation and you give me some breakdown of gender stats.. These two are not the same but you cannot see it because you have become radicalised by a faith based belief system every bit as dangerous as religion is."
    
    Actually, religion probably isn't the problem. Most people aren't as blind following faith as other people...that is to say that once most people choose something or someone to believe, it more or less sticks. You recall your somewhat hostile response on EA? That's just a taste of it. A great deal of people are prejudice and I suspect it's a natural response as a means of protecting one's self from harm from a percieved threat (more or less). That woman that I mentioned about wanting men to suffer even after they've proven to never actually do anything wrong? She's a atheist and a rather up front one. She thinks that the belief in God is downright stupidity and that religious people are dangerous. Something that is just downright false; most religious people are not stupid nor are they dangerous, no more so than at least some atheistic people. In fact, she instantly believes anything backing the name of science tells her. Now, a scientist is a good source of information, that I can agree upon, but she has a near actual religious belief in whatever these people say and ignores anything that disagrees with her view of the world.
    
    A lot of people just seem to become really, really stupid about certain things...and some people take it an extra lightyear and transform into a bigot who lashes out at anyone or anything that disagrees with them.
17. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 2/5/2009 11:11 PM
    
    Perhaps I should have said "faith based belief system every bit as dangerous as religion can be."
    
    The majority is fine. In fact, I'm more likely to align with religious people as far as my views go. It's the fundamentalist types, whatever the belief system, that are the problem.
18. Posted by: Mith on 2/6/2009 4:36 AM
    
    Fundementalists have always been a problem sadly. It's the narrow minded hate that drives me up the walls.
19. Posted by: dalsgaard on 2/15/2009 8:46 AM
    
    Ian:
    
    "Where is the evidence? You make statements like, "This is where feminism has achieved a world where women have no less opportunity than men, can take any degree they want to and choose their own career." This is a substantive claim. this is a claim that needs to be backed up by statistics of some kind. Where are the statistics that support a claim like this?"
    - Wait a second. You require proof of this? It is common knowledge that most if not all professions are readily available to both genders with few exceptions. I understand why statistics are relevant relating to discussions revolving around cultural issues, but this is really tantamount to infantile semantics.
20. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 2/17/2009 5:20 AM
    
    Ian places the need for statistics on arguments that don't call for them becuase he requires plausable deniability for his faith based belief systems. If the argument was flawed then he would address it, he cannot thus he diverts, it is a red herring strung across my path to try and divert from the issue.