Saying that women only do things to serve or benefit men doesn't empower young men? That is literally telling young men that women are subservient to them.....

Who exactly is stealing the power away from these young men? And what exactly are they taking away?

Can you give us a example of how JP actually empowers men?

[–] PatFussy@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Saying that women only do things to serve or benefit men doesn't empower young men

I have never heard JBP say this. I have heard him say that agreeable people tend to be stepped on and that women tend to be agreeable... but thats not the same thing.

Dont turn this on me. I asked if you could provide an example of how he isnt effective at empowering young men(which is the point of this meme). You cant reverse uno and ask me the same question

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

have never heard JBP say this.

I mean you asked for a quote and someone provided a quote. You can look up the quote and find articles about it.

It's just one of the misogynistic lies he spews on the regular. I believe in the same interview he stated that high heels were invented to lengthen the legs of women to make them more attractive...... In reality high heels were first worn by men to keep shit from getting in their shoes.

I have heard him say that agreeable people tend to be stepped on and that women tend to be agreeable... but thats not the same thing.

Lol, so much better..... It's your fault you are being stepped on, not the generations of oppression and systemic disenfranchisement. Does that apply to everyone? Is he saying that Africans were just to agreeable so we had to enslave them...... Broken as logic.

asked if you could provide an example of how he isnt effective at empowering young men

Yes, I'm going to first prove God doesn't exist, then I will work on proving the negative with JP ..... You can't prove a negative my dude. If you are making the claim that he empowers young men, it's up to you to provide the evidence that proves it.

[–] PatFussy@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you are making the claim that he empowers young men, it's up to you to provide the evidence that proves it.

Im just going to respond to this because im kinda over this. The claim was initially made by the meme. I am questioning this, yet you are here asking me for proof of the contrary.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The claim was initially made by the meme. I am questioning this, yet you are here asking me for proof of the contrary.

The claim was made by a meme with no supporting evidence, and thus can be dismissed without evidence.

The meme is also inanimate and cannot defend it's own affirmation. However, you chose to substantiate this affirmation, which means you now have the onus of burden of proof.

[–] PatFussy@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That literally makes no sense. You have a good day.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Let me explain then. If there was an ancient tablet found with the words "God is dead" on it. Would we take that at face value? No, it doesn't have any evidence to support it, there is no reason to engage in debate.

However if you suppose the tablet is correct, you would have to support that affirmation with additional supporting information. The statement of the tablet isn't self evident, so it not really a serious claim. You are making it a serious claim by supporting it, and thus must be the one to provide evidence for that claim.

This is pretty basic debate, which is usually structured into the form of affirmation vs negation. The side of the affirmation is the one making a claim( god is dead), the side of the negation responds by denying the claim and responding to supporting evidence by proposing counter arguments.

It doesn't matter that you didn't make the original claims, only that you choose the side of the affirmation.