Scarlet Pimpernel: How about playing Milton Friedman for him, via YouTube. · 31 minutes ago
Edited 31 minutes ago
From Free to Choose.
Oh, so that's how the healthcare website was designed.
The solution is the greatest common divisor of 20, 25, and 40.
I generally agree with what you that women can provide a very positive influence. However, character can't be built simply by having others reign in bad behavior. It requires initiative on the part of the man in question. I don't believe men can simply be "led" to behave.
That being said, I'm not trying to ascribe the views above to you. I just think that people need to hold themselves up to a higher standard.
I didn't mean to imply that you were being demeaning, though I think my last sentence did convey that. I was thinking more about the implications of the argument you were making.
My perspective on this comes from being told for many years, through T.V. shows and, suprisingly, from other boys that men are more stupid than women and that we should just accept that. I can't begin to recount how many times I was told that women mature faster than men because of differences in how the brain grows. What I know from experience is that some women are more mature than men and some men are more mature than women (e.g. Miley Cyrus). Maturity is more complex than a single biological difference; it is the product of a life's worth of experience.
The main point I was trying to convey was that this idea is pervasive throughout the culture and it does us no good to perpetuate it. I agree with you that men can be vulnerable to manipulation, as can women. People are manipulated all the time.
Equal in what way?
It seems to me that men should be held to higher standards, not lower. The assumption implicit in this argument is that men are malleable and simple-minded, which is why they can easily be manipulated by women. How can we expect men to develop character when they are presented with that assumption? We can recognize the differences between men and women without demeaning the intellects of their respective members.
It's hard to figure out who is sadder here: the auctioneer or the bidder.
Some has-been (or never-been) grasping for relevance, using the tried and true "Janeane Garofalo method." · 16 minutes ago
Edited 15 minutes ago
You can't write this stuff.
Maybe someday, Obama will answer his prayers.
Alarmism about climate change will eventually fade away as the evidence piles up against it. However, the whole affair will be quietly swept under the rug by the media in preparation for the next "disaster". They don't need AGW to be true; anything which can be attributed to man will suffice.
"This video is creating an unsafe learning environment for me. I demand that it is banned from being played on campus, unless you are within a specially designated area."
Does she not see the irony in what she's doing?
I wonder if this sort of thing is becoming more common with the advent of social media. I deleted my Facebook account about one year ago (I highly recommend it). People who, just a few years ago, I had spoken with in High school seemed almost compelled to post about their liberal points of view, causes, or crusades against conservatives they didn't like. I made a point of never responding to those posts to prevent the sort of thing you're describing above. The one time I broke this rule I received a personal attack, more or less telling me how I shouldn't look down on other points of view. The irony was, the post I responded too was this. When stating facts makes you into the bad guy, pessimism suddenly makes a great deal more sense.
What difference, at this point, does it make?
This is what comes to mind.
Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:
Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place. Join today!
Already a Member? Sign In