-1=e^ipi

I didn't come up with the term.

The educational system should be used to give people useful skills that will make them more productive citizens in the future, not to be used to impose cultural values on kids. If you want to teach kids Chinese, Korean, Japanese or Spanish, that is fine as they are useful languages. But trying to revive a dead language seems like a pointless waste of time and money.

Courtship, marriage and someone's relationship status should not be a major factor in immigration as far as I am concerned, so that would solve problems 1 and 3. What should matter is if the person will contribute economically. For problem 2, the language laws are ridiculous. If a potential immigrant would net contribute economically to Canada then they should be let in.

SJW use the term social justice, so the term makes sense. I do not use the term wizard nor do I write abra-kadabra or whatever, so why call me one?

Social justice is Orwellian. Social justice is not justice. Rather than argue the merits of a position people often just play a word association game to associate justice with their position. By calling it social justice, the SJWs reduce the chance that people will question it.

Originally, I did something more complicated, which took into account the crime feedback effect, but after I found that the crime feedback effect was relatively small compared to the health feedback, I decided to simplify things. As I mentioned before, reducing income inequality or increasing economic output can improve physical health of a society, which can result in greater economic output and thus a feedback effect. Let Y be a measure of economic output, E be a measure of income inequality and H be a measure of the health of the population. Suppose that Y is a linear function of H, and that H is a linear functions of Y and E. Suppose that initially, Y, E and H are all in equilibrium and at time t = 0 Y and E are increased by ΔY and ΔE respectively. Then at time t = 1, H will increase by ΔH = β1ΔY + β2ΔE and then at time t = 2, Y will increase by ΔY2 = β3ΔH, where the betas are known coefficients. This feedback will continue until a new equilibrium is reached. For this relation, the equilibrium change in Y is (1/(1 - β1β3))*(ΔY + β2β3ΔE). So this gives me a way to take into account the positive feedbacks of health if β1, β2, and β3 are known (by rescaling the economic output). I'll use ln(GDP per capita) as my measure of economic output, the Gini coefficient as my measure of income inequality and life expectancy as my measure of health outcome. If I restrict my analysis to 24 western developed countries then variation in outcome due to cultural differences or levels of development or technology will be relatively small. However, there are other things that may explain differences in economic output. In particular physical capital (the effect of which I can approximate with the ln of the savings rate), human capital (% of population with a tertiary education might be a good indicator of this) and efficiency (I can use ln(1-tax rate) to take into account efficiency due to tax and I can use ln(population) to take into account the economies of scale for having a larger population; I may also want to use a dummy variable for if a country is in Europe or not) are relevant. So I can estimate the effect of health on economic output using a population weighted regression that takes into other relevant factors. For the effect of economic output and inequality on health, I can do a simple population-weighted linear regression where a constant, economic output and inequality are the explanatory variables. Using data on 24 countries, I estimate β1 = 0.638, β2 = -19.9, β3 = 0.0355. There are probably endogeneity issues, but I just want to see roughly the magnitude of this health feedback. If I redo the results of post #383 with this feedback effect, the optimal level of taxation increases by 5.15 percentage points.

You are right that non-institutional words are reflective of social attitudes. And social attitudes are that males have intrinsically less value than females (arguably it stems from male disposibility). So we have double standards such as it is not socially acceptable for men to hit women but not visa-versa, female infant genital mutilation is not okay but male infant genital mutilation is, some countries like the US have a male only draft, etc.

Some people are too emotionally invested in an argument to ever be convinced. There are countless examples on these forums (such as individuals refusing to acknowledge the basics of photosynthesis and cellular respiration). My ideas are unlikely to take hold since few people care much about internal consistency, falsifiability, etc. Much easier to just believe in whatever makes you feel good and gives you a false sense of moral superiority. That is unfortunately the way of the word. Am I the only one who thinks it is a bit weird that being called a wizard is suppose to be negative? So what are you saying? That people shouldn't cast doubt on unfalsifiable theories? So since traditionally most people weren't atheist, atheists should not create doubt about the existence of god? 1. Just because society overall thinks something does not mean it is correct. 2. I don't think all women's issues have been solved. But I also don't think it's the 1950s. When you have a society where over 60% of university graduates are female, men have a lower life expectancy and higher suicide rate, millennial women out-earning millennial men in urban areas, etc. the 'women are oppressed, males are privileged' narrative starts to get absurd.

I am not sure I understand what argument you are trying to make. People choose their words, therefore, something?

I intend to celebrate by burning a Canadian flag.

But I look at specific traits that apply to all the definition such as the fact that Patriarchy is singular. At one point in time it was widely accepted that the Earth was flat. Should Galileo not have casted doubt on this idea because it was widely accepted? And you also have situations where solving a certain problem becomes people's reason d'etre, so once the problem is solved people will pretend the problem hasn't been solved and perceive anyone that disagrees with them as evidence that the problem hasn't been solved. Some people like cybercoma obtain great self-worth by pretending it's the 1950s and that he is the noble white knight protecting all the oppressed women from the hordes of misogynists.

Historically, people used policeman, does that mean people should use policeman rather than police officer today? Historically Canada has 'in all thy sons' in our national anthem. Does that mean it should stay there because 'it's good because it reminds us of where the struggle' of WW1 started? No, in all cases gender neutrality should trump these silly historical arguments.

And you still haven't provided a falsifiable prediction of patriarchy theory that predicts something different from matriarchy theory. This is like arguing with a creationist and the creationist just goes 'of course god exists'. Why is Socratic inquiry stupid? I hate to inform you of this, but you do not possess the ability to read people's minds. Why not try to address the points I bring up rather than try to insert some hidden motive? You are committing the appeal to motive fallacy. Projection much? More appeal to motive. The fallacy continues. And you aren't even correct about my motive. I'm part of the MRA Army now? Wow, I had no idea. The guide is about trying to insert hidden motives where their are none, just like what you are doing here. When I say that I think the most qualified person should get the job, that is what I mean. If you can't defeat a position or argument, pretend that it doesn't exist? Is that how you keep your dogma alive?

Yes, sexism is pretty stupid. Wow sexism. More sexism. Do you realize you are basically making the concept of male privilege unfalsifiable because anything you observe only strengthens your belief in male privilege? Congrats. You are a bigot.

Btw, all anyone has to do to show that I am wrong about this thread is to offer a testable prediction of Patriarchy that isn't also offered by Matriarchy.

Nope. "Gender equality, also known as sex equality, gender egalitarianism, sexual equality or equality of the genders, is the view that men and women should receive equal treatment, and should not be discriminated against based on gender." Isn't equal rights for women the same thing as equal rights for men? If so, then why not take a position of gender egalitarianism. If not, then is this the Orwellian concept of all animals are equal, some are just more equal than others?

I think you meant I am too meaningful for a feminist discussion. I like precise definitions; unfortunately that doesn't help the SJW agenda since it makes it harder for them to change meaning whenever it is convenient for them.

Feminist table, opposing table. You are perpetuating the myth of a false dichotomy of positions with respect to gender issues.

Wow. Now he's blatantly openly sexist. The reason you think I misrepresent feminism is because your belief system involves a large amount of cognitive dissonance so logical consistency doesn't matter to you. I have used definitions of patriarchy in this thread. Where have I defined feminism in this thread? I have discussed the implications of an innate property of using the word feminism to describe a desirable position, but that isn't defining it. When I have discussed definitions of feminism before, I have always emphasized that definitions vary and feminism can mean anything from gender egalitarianism to misandric hate ideology. Oh no. Another 'the debate is over' type argument. How unexpected. *sarcasm*

I take that as a yes.

Apparently men aren't allowed to have their own opinions about feminism and feminism belongs to women. Cybercoma's position isn't sexist at all. *sarcasm*

Traditionalism is similar to the feminist concept of patriarchy but without the problems I have listed above (is gender neutral, isn't homogeneous, isn't necessarily singular, etc.). If you want a definition, here is one "the upholding or maintenance of tradition, especially so as to resist change". In the context of gender issues, traditionalism usually refers to positions or cultures that uphold traditional gender roles. Have I misrepresented feminism in this thread? If so, give an example. Speaking for 'them'? Who is 'them' and how is explaining the flaws behind the idea of 'Patriarchy' speaking for 'them'?

Pretty sure that Moonlight Graham is defining feminism for himself...

Look, I get that the flawed ideological narrative that you and cybercoma are deeply emotionally invested in can't compete with the criticisms I have made of it in this thread and elsewhere, so to keep the delusion alive you two have to pretend I have a different position than I actually have or that I have some hidden secret motive.

Denial of micro-aggression is a form of micro-aggression. Do you deny that I am asexual?