Thanks for posting this - it's good to have the nuances of the thing pointed out. The point to pay attention to is whether or not the above analogies are true analogies, or whether there's sleight of hand going on: 1) A curfew on men = recommending women not go out alone. 2) ED medication = The Pill. 3) Male ejaculation that does not result in conception [is in some sense equivalent to] abortion. Can't even use the '=' on that last one, it's such a stretch. The degree to which these points are seen as analogous is a matter of an absolute truckload of background factors. The usual ones like cultural setting, temperament, upbringing, education, personal experience, etc. I read an article on another site today that was trying to lambast Jordan Peterson's praise of social settings where long-term monogamy is encouraged/enforced. The article took a long time to get to the point, and in the end what it seemed to be saying was that some women want to be able to sleep around and still have monogamous relationships, plus all the protections available to women in patriarchal societies. I think Peterson has always pointed out that rape is less common in patriarchal societies with a strong rule of law &c., but that doesn't stop some people wanting to have their cake and get it eaten by lots of different guys too. =oP In analogical terms, cumming on a tissue is very far away from killing an unborn baby. In fact, if anything, cumming on a tissue is the equivalent of a woman taking the pill. Neither involves killing, although as noted in previous comments, future possible mishaps now count as present crimes, all in the name of safety, so reason and the law are effectively a free-for-all. Just remember Robespierre had hundreds of thousands of French people murdered as head of the Committee of Public Safety.
Agreed, it seems like a lot of people just want to argue with each other instead of actually trying to understand where the other person is coming from. I'll admit I'm easily baited into arguments but its nice when it doesnt happen.
Its nice to discuss things with people on here and it not turn into shitflinging. Doesn't happen often enough to be honest.
Well said. The point being made utterly falls apart if you think about it objectively for more than a minute. It is based on so many false equivalencies and leaps of logic that it doesnt make any sense to anyone who isnt already biased towards agreement. To anyone who isnt in that camp it just confuses or even antagonises them, and this accomplishes nothing.
