args

Feminism has reached a point where it is now more harmful than good.

Thanks I thought nobody would be in for it. My Greatest respects. Sincerely, me The Fool says: Money, money, why is it always about money? Is that all woman want, with their diamonds, cloth and jewellery. Get you grubby fingers out of here…Its mine... Its mine I tell you.. all mine. ;) Me: I must say that was not even funny I apologize. A Sophist report: A June 2010 report by the U.S. Department of Labor(1) read that, in 2009, women who were full time salary or wage employees earned only 80% of their male counterparts. The fool: the problem with this stat is that the sentence seems to give the impression that they are speaking within a framework of similar jobs.. as oppose the general set of Labour jobs. That is, it does not entail either or. 1. For let it be the case woman work in the same job and they get less pay. A fool’s job: I have worked in construction, and when I entered I got less pay then everybody, why because I was new and less practiced. Even when I took on new duty I got more but the other guys would get paid more as well. Why? Because they were now more experience in these new duties. They did the job faster and with fewer mistakes. Eventually I read the top. But the others at the top still got more pay because they had been there longer and were still more experienced. And most companies only need so much people. I am black and the rest of the company is white. I could start complaining that it’s because I am black but that doesn’t make because I understand the complexity of the issue. If woman are entering larger variety of jobs gap it is to be expect that there will be this effect for a while. It is immoral to just presuppose you are owed what other people have worked for. But instead stealing it gets renamed into owing by some divine notion of righteous. 2. For let it be the case that woman get paid less in the general labour jobs or in general all together. An important thing to think about is, that there are still many more house wives in relation to house husband. If this is true then we have all the right to expect there to be this gap, since men in general are more likely to be the wage of more than one person. Moreover if a family is successful with this strategy we should expect these men to be the people who make higher salaries then others, for it is really a salary of two people. If we account for the important factors I have mentioned, we may even see a slant in the other direction. If feminist seek equality why is this information being omitted from feminist studies. A fool test: walk up to some feminist mob and start asking these questions. The anger will turn into HATE very fast, just for asking questions. But if they are speaking the truth, why would they do that? I have done it. Lol. But I have always been more of a Galileo then a Copernicus. (More on hate later) Even worse: Wage is not the only source of funding, if men pay more taxes because of making more and with the increased tax rate. Men pay more taxes then woman. But more taxes go to woman. When we look at social programs to help females and males, there is a huge majority in toward woman and woman only programs. In large part in particularly by feminists programs. Some other forms are in educational programs, e.g. females only in scholarships; focus on female encouragement, more resources. This is all besides the fact that more shelters, and guidance counsellors more social supportive resources. Even aside from what has been mentioned men still spend more on woman then woman on men. That is woman get more free goods then men in general. The issue of finance is not as simple as same job same pay. Don’t be fooled. (these are slippery these ones) The fool Says: the r- Sophist over simplifies when it is in their favour and then appeals to complexity when it is not. For these are the sophisms of the relativist. Look out for their switchiness nature. ;) A fools warning: One thing I want to make clear is to not mistake feminist or feminism with the sex: woman, in this case people with XX chromosomes. For the Fool is at war with fundamentalism. In this case the fundamentalisms’ within Feminism. My claim is that it became and I more harmful society. The Fool: When I reflect on my studies about the history of feminism. I remember only a small group of feminist, and even then they would speak as though they were speaking for all women past and present for all eternity. But this will always be a problem because, feminists could never be representative sample of population of woman because they will always be a sample with more conviction, motivation and often more hate in relation to the actual population of woman. In what sense is this ever accounted for in feminist claim? F-fundementalism: what I mean by this is any content of a belief system, or beliefs/faiths, opinions, viewpoints are considered truths base from expectation alone. It is very familiar to hear people say that everything is a belief or it’s all a matter of opinion. What do is the difference? What could we know for sure? Well for example I have concept/thought of a unicorn. But let’s say a Sophist tells me that it is a belief, I would say no it’s impossible, why because I don’t believe in unicorns. Therefore it would be a contradiction. That is, your thought is synonymous with the mental concept. You could never be wrong about what you are just thinking. Your thought is your thought it is always and absolutely true or you couldn’t even be thinking it. We can call this a self-evident truth; Proof: Just picture a tree in your mind, no matter what I think or believe or other people say your mental conceptions (ideas) are true as an idea. This is always absolutely true even if you don’t believe it. For example you may forget tomorrow that you thought of a tree just now, but it will always be true that at this time right now you had that thought whether you even believe or not. Even if no one can recognize it still happened. No matter what anyone tells you could never be wrong about what you’re thinking. The sophist will try and trick you out of it. A belief/faith is different because they depend on expectations, which is more than just a thought. When we say we believe in a tree we mean a tree in another context then thought alone. Proof: thinks of something that you belief in but you don’t’ expect to be true. (try) you will see it doesn’t make sense. That is to not expect something to be true, is to not belief. So remember to expect something doesn’t mean it will be true, it just mean you expect something to be true. But remember what you believe in can turn out to be false. So there is the belief and the content (the thing you believe in) What we are doing here is working with the mind. It is your mind that is the proof of these things. If you get what I mean you should understand your own mind A true belief means the content is true. To claim that a something is true just because you expect it too is f-fundamentalist belief. So to have f-knowledge it must be more than just a belief, that is it must be a belief+evidence Evidence is simply a form of verification. (Experience) it doesn’t have to be physical. So we may say that knowledge is justified believe. Another level, the highest level is f-certified knowledge, which is proven justified belief or it can be called True justified belief. We consider math to be TJB The fool: the relative sophist is a very slippery creature. It strength lies in vague term and the manipulation of definition. We must begin by throwing some sand on it.