It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Delusions of the far left and moral relativism....

page: 5
38
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: OneGoal




It's proof that our society has constructs set up to block a Christ-like person, or Christ himself.


This a hidden underlying element of what I was talking about. I didn't clearly articulate it in the OP for a reason but I'm glad you brought that up.

There is a reason why the league of nations was formed, why Isreal was put in the ME, why the Ottoman empire was broken.

None of this is happening on accident.

There's a reason natural laws are being invert and we are suppose to trust the intelligence of man.



It involves quite a bit more than those elements, but you bring up some great points in the mess of it all.

I may have come off as a bit preachy in my my post, but like I said I am more of a true agnostic. I study everything i come in contact with. All religions, philosophies, theories, ideas in general. With that said, it's hard to believe billions of people are believing something that is entirely invalid aka Christianity.

I don't know the details really, but I've had some mind blowing experiences that point to something of validity to it all.

Am I just a deluded fool? Maybe, but I have a hard time disrespecting people's beliefs if it's important to them, and ignoring any possible knowledge to be gained from learning from them.


On a political note (sorry my tangential thinking was acting up) I'm a U.S. citizen, however I am a registered independent. I think the dual partisan system is severely flawed at this point and i find myself wondering if anyone is ever going to realize we need to update it. Perhaps so called conservatives or liberals would realize that most of them are moderate and actually agree on a lot of things, namely some very important, basic things. Those things should bring us together, we shouldn't constantly focus on what may or may not divide us in opinion.

Maybe more progress would be made.
edit on 6-6-2016 by OneGoal because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 06:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: onequestion

No one is going to turn you into a female. No one is going to emasculate you. No one can do that without your permission. So why care? Why worry about it? This "agenda" wouldn't be a big deal if people didn't react so strongly to it.

- AB


That's not entirely true. Male children at young ages have had emasculating experiences to varying degrees. Ive heard stories some of whom are close friends of mine. Fairly certain that they didn't give permission to have those experiences.

This is why I personally think people should respect a kid's newness to the world and not # it up for them in any way, shape or form. Call me crazy lol.

At any rate, I enjoyed your thoughts here AboveBoard. Women have put up with a lot of crap, men too. I think we're slowly, but surely realizing how to appreciate differences rather than assume that those different qualities are bad for some idiotic reason(s). It's the swinging of the pendulum from seeking to fear, control and hate vs. Seeking to appreciate, equalize, and respect.

Do keep in mind, not all men throughout the ages treated women in the ways you described. Many men always loved and knew women for who they are. Our wonderous companions in this journey of life.


edit on 6-6-2016 by OneGoal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 06:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
As I said in the other thread, the hero archetype appears everywhere. It doesn't belong to an ideology, a culture, a race, a sexuality, a sex, a gender or even a species (dogs are quite heroic). I don't think anyone has an agenda to suppress the hero archetype and to suggest an ideology does, is just hateful.


Are you intentionally trying to come off as a cartoon character?

It's hateful to suggest that some group somewhere might seek to get rid of the individualistic drive of a population in order to more easily control them?

I truly, in all honesty, hope you never have to experience real hatred, because your scale seems so badly calibrated I don't think you could handle it.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: onequestion

You do understand that nobody can make you be a girl if you don't want to be a girl?

Take some responsibility for your life and quit whining about how other people are making you do things you don't want to do




I wasn't aware the human body had the capability to choose to not absorb things found in the environment.

Female hormones are now in drinking water, food products, etc.

Either educate yourself or stop typing.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: James1982

James...are you a girl now?


Either educate yourself or stop typing.





posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
And in movies now, the HEROIN is the leading role, more and more, and the Males know their place.

Every girl is a ninja samurai assassin now.

When I hardly know any women that strive to be that or even emulate that. MOST women I know run from ants, tell me to kill spiders, freak out at loud noises, and freeze when something violent happens in front of them...

But according to Hollywood, women are just bad asses, and kick the crap out of men with ease, and are pretty, and get the good looking guy in the end.

BIOTCH PLEASE!! If you are the type of girl to do all that, at MOST...you look and act like Rhonda Rousey...at the very BEST, which is like 1 in a million.

At average you look like a dude, talk like a dude, are possibly VERY lesbian, and you've lost most appearances or hints of "femininity".

Give me a damn break with all this chick Ninja Superbadass stuff. Get outa here



Hey, I'm a big fan of Xena and Laura Croft.

Nothing wrong wit dem. In fact, I alway pick a female game character.

They are more fun.






posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: James1982

James...are you a girl now?


Either educate yourself or stop typing.








Negative, I am a meat Popsicle! We are gender free and help fight global warming.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
As you can tell by the responses you are getting, the morality of the moral relativists is one of feelings. They do not like what you say and the only course of action seems to be to question your motives, and other trifles. Their solipsistic and self-serving principles can be condensed to this one: They don't feel feel that way, therefor you shouldn't either.



You're obviously in the "Morality is objective and absolute" camp huh???

Well, rather than just take shots at the opposing side and using some nonsense about how they're wrong because they "feel" differently from you. Why don't you instead prove to us that Morality is Objectively Proven and Absolute for us.

Because it seems rather odd that Morals change not only from culture to culture but from person to person so if they're objectively some universal truth to them why is it people don't all know them the same??



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: James1982

I got a U2U from a member claiming to be a "meat popsicle" as well.

Neat.
edit on 6-6-2016 by OneGoal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

Its a little late to be concerned. For the masses, moral relativism won years ago. They sucked it up like kool aide.
Hence, we have...............(drum roll), Hilary Clinton.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion


Ok, now this is a post I can respond too.

Let me ask you a question...

Do you think energy has something to do with gender roles?

Do you think physical ability has been one of the major defining variables of determining gender roles?

Do you think giving birth and carrying a baby has anything to do with the way women think and act?

Do you think having a period is something that changes the way women think and act and may be another variable in gender role?



I think you cannot look at the roles of men and women traditionally without looking at culture and religion, at who was in control of what people "should" do at that point in history, or even now. The CULTURE we are in defines a lot of what we consider "masculine" and "feminine" both energetically and in the roles we play.

When a CULTURE goes through changes, people freak out. Roles clearly defined are suddenly in flux and it FEELS WRONG because we have been taught that everything should be in these little boxes. When CULTURE changes, there are storms.

We are in a storm where homosexuality and transgender folks are being assimilated into the greater scheme of things instead of being outcasts, ostracized as evil for not following our proscribed cultural norms that we created through our beliefs about what men and women should do and be - I totally get that. It feels like an attack to some people, a massive conspiratorial agenda. It feels like an assault on "how things should be," some folks religious underpinnings rebel at the very notion of removing that stigma.

Some folks are enjoying playing the role of "culture breakers" and getting in the faces of everyone who doesn't agree with them - they seek reaction to their bid for power. People freaking out gives them a thrill. This isn't evidence of a conspiracy, just that the alphas on the side of breaking the culture are enjoying rebelling and pushing their individuality into the faces of those who want things to stay the same, with clearly defined rules that are comfortable to them.

People felt the same way over black and white people getting married and being considered equal. There were riots. There were deaths. There were assassinations. There was blood in the streets. CULTURAL shifts are very difficult! There is great resistance to them. Women who wanted to vote back in the day were imprisoned in insane asylums for their trouble, put in jail, beaten, etc. all because they challenged the CULTURAL norm that defined what their role meant based on their gender.

As to your questions regarding biology and division of gender roles, while it is true that men cannot currently bear children (though I'm sure some scientist will figure it out eventually), and that men's and women's hormonal development as well as their hormonal cycles or responses are part of our traditional role breakdown. CULTURE however, plays an equal part in the definition of roles (culture meaning religion, secular culture, family culture, ethnic culture, etc. that an individual carries with them) - thus my long-winded response above.

Physical strength? Well, that is also on a spectrum. While its true the strongest male is stronger than the strongest female, there are also plenty of women who are stronger physically than plenty of men. Also, female endurance is often greater than male endurance - witness the sport of Ultra Running where women can win against men due to the nature of the physical effort involved.

WHY do "the liberal alphas" want to change culture? WHY does that relate to traditional gender roles and sexuality?

"Masculinity" has been given a bad rap by the people who hold power, by the captains of industry, by those who shaped the world into the mess it currently has to deal with. It is not the "Hero" that is being attacked here, really, it is the SHADOW MALE - "he who wars, he who rapes and pillages, he whose greed and callousness warp the earth, he whose self-centered ego-driven narcissism and selfishness create thoughtless sorrow for the rest of us...etc." THAT is the "enemy."

Bring on the HERO. Let him conquer the SHADOW MALE. (There's plenty of SHADOW FEMALE too - I'm aware of that.)

Anyway. I may not have answered your questions in a way you wanted me to, but I've answered them.

peace,
AB

edit on 6-6-2016 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-6-2016 by AboveBoard because: quotes got wonky...had to fix...



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
As you can tell by the responses you are getting, the morality of the moral relativists is one of feelings. They do not like what you say and the only course of action seems to be to question your motives, and other trifles. Their solipsistic and self-serving principles can be condensed to this one: They don't feel feel that way, therefor you shouldn't either.



That sounds like you're reacting to words, Les.

You do not like what people say, and you question their motives, and other trifles.

Does that make you a moral relativist, then?


You'd be wrong on that account. Relevitism is for those without principles...well besides one: feelings. Is that why you responded Gryphon?



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
As you can tell by the responses you are getting, the morality of the moral relativists is one of feelings. They do not like what you say and the only course of action seems to be to question your motives, and other trifles. Their solipsistic and self-serving principles can be condensed to this one: They don't feel feel that way, therefor you shouldn't either.



You're obviously in the "Morality is objective and absolute" camp huh???

Well, rather than just take shots at the opposing side and using some nonsense about how they're wrong because they "feel" differently from you. Why don't you instead prove to us that Morality is Objectively Proven and Absolute for us.

Because it seems rather odd that Morals change not only from culture to culture but from person to person so if they're objectively some universal truth to them why is it people don't all know them the same??


Because one opposes moral relativism doesn't mean he thinks morality is "Objectively Proven and Absolute", whatever that means.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
As you can tell by the responses you are getting, the morality of the moral relativists is one of feelings. They do not like what you say and the only course of action seems to be to question your motives, and other trifles. Their solipsistic and self-serving principles can be condensed to this one: They don't feel feel that way, therefor you shouldn't either.



I see you have chosen to once again find a false summation over a diverse grouping of people. At least you're predictable and consistent in your folly.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
As you can tell by the responses you are getting, the morality of the moral relativists is one of feelings. They do not like what you say and the only course of action seems to be to question your motives, and other trifles. Their solipsistic and self-serving principles can be condensed to this one: They don't feel feel that way, therefor you shouldn't either.



That sounds like you're reacting to words, Les.

You do not like what people say, and you question their motives, and other trifles.

Does that make you a moral relativist, then?


You'd be wrong on that account. Relevitism is for those without principles...well besides one: feelings. Is that why you responded Gryphon?


I responded because find the topic interesting. The apparent "delusion" or perhaps more generously "category error" in the title and OP fascinate me. I am amazed that anyone can cite others for delusion when it is quite obvious they are dealing only with subjective understandings and very little objective truth.

I responded to you because I know that you maintain that words/language have no innate effect. Yet, I see you constantly responding to and being affected by nothing more than words on a screen here at ATS.

You point out other's foibles, even while you are exhibiting them.

I know you're a careful thinker, and I always want to provide an opportunity for you to review these rather contradictory if not hypocritical stances. You fail to apply your own standards to your own behavior.

As to relativism for myself? I have fairly strong internal ethics that I am very familiar with and have constantly reviewed my entire life for consistency and applicability. I don't submit those for pubic inspection, typically, not even by crowing that I have them or continually attempting to diminish anyone who I don't think is living up to them.

Thanks as always for your answer!



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: SargonThrall


As to AboveBoard's notion of heroes, they are spot on. Heroes are an invention of humankind (hence why they exist in every culture and mythology) and represent an ideal rather than reality. We invent what we desire, what we lack. Heroes in reality are not noble or altruistic, but rather, severely flawed. Are heroes subjective?


I totally disagree with this statement.

I believe the hero archetype is a subconscious manifestation of the self and a methodology with which we can understand specific subconscious inclinations.

There are reasons why they are considered archetypes and there are reasons why every culture on the planet has a hero archetype in its mythos.

Jesus, Apollo, Muhammad and the list goes on...

In my opinion there is an agenda to suppress that archetype deep in the subconscious mind in both men and women. This archetype is not limited to men or women it is an archetype. I am a man so to me the archetype is more like the Apollo mythology on a personal level.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard




I think you cannot look at the roles of men and women traditionally without looking at culture and religion, at who was in control of what people "should" do at that point in history, or even now. The CULTURE we are in defines a lot of what we consider "masculine" and "feminine" both energetically and in the roles we play.


I disagree. The roles men and women play have more to do with physical and mental ability than you think. Women are not physically big and strong enough to go out with hunting and war parties during times of tribalism and before we had gunpowder.

In this era nature was the sole determining factor in the roles of men and women.

The natural order dictated that men were to go to war and hunt and build while women were to take care of the children, collect food and water and whatever else they we're responsible for while the men were out dying.



We are in a storm where homosexuality and transgender folks are being assimilated into the greater scheme of things instead of being outcasts, ostracized as evil for not following our proscribed cultural norms that we created through our beliefs about what men and women should do and be - I totally get that. It feels like an attack to some people, a massive conspiratorial agenda. It feels like an assault on "how things should be," some folks religious underpinnings rebel at the very notion of removing that stigma.


Homosexuality is more of a cultural phenomenon than gender roles. Transgenders are a new manifestation of technology.



Physical strength? Well, that is also on a spectrum. While its true the strongest male is stronger than the strongest female, there are also plenty of women who are stronger physically than plenty of men. Also, female endurance is often greater than male endurance - witness the sport of Ultra Running where women can win against men due to the nature of the physical effort involved.


Why isn't there a heavyweight division for women in combat sports?

Why is it that in combat sports women fight in MUCH smaller weight divisions?

It's not a spectrum men are bigger and stronger period. They are also faster and have different mechanisms to deal with stress again another manifestation of nature and evolution.

American Psychological Association

While your source may claim that the brains operate within the same parameters in many tests evidently men and women have different methods with which they choose to do things such as stress management on what's apparently a measurable scale.




Men and women* report different reactions to stress, both physically and mentally. They attempt to manage stress in very different ways and also perceive their ability to do so — and the things that stand in their way — in markedly different ways. Findings suggest that while women are more likely to report physical symptoms associated with stress, they are doing a better job connecting with others in their lives and, at times, these connections are important to their stress management strategies.


Although men and women are both equally necessary and both deserve equal treatment and respect they are OBVIOUSLY not equal in musculature and mental capacity. Neither less than the other but clearly different.




WHY do "the liberal alphas" want to change culture? WHY does that relate to traditional gender roles and sexuality?


Because the far left is delusional and can't see reality for what it is. They are to emotional and lack objective intelligence. They can't clearly see the facts I've stated in the rest of the post. They don't think there is a difference between man and women and there clearly is.




Bring on the HERO. Let him conquer the SHADOW MALE. (There's plenty of SHADOW FEMALE too - I'm aware of that.)


You don't understand archetypes I recommend you read up on them. What your referring to is a specific archetype that I've singled out and not the only manifestation of the hero.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: onequestion

It seems the concept of moral relativism is either widely misunderstood or oversimplified by many on this website.


There's very little intelligent and objective conversation happening right now.

Most of the post are as simple minded as, "not uh your a hater"

Or, "your an idiot, your dumb you don't know what your talking about"

There's very little breaking down of details, quoting, sourcing and analytical objective reaction happening. Mostly offended emotional response.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
As I said in the other thread, the hero archetype appears everywhere. It doesn't belong to an ideology, a culture, a race, a sexuality, a sex, a gender or even a species (dogs are quite heroic). I don't think anyone has an agenda to suppress the hero archetype and to suggest an ideology does, is just hateful.


I think onequestion is referring to archetype in the literary sense. In classical and historic literature and mythology, heroes are virtually all men and share certain characteristics. He's right in this regard.

I've also noticed something funny--- every human civilization ever to exist has been patriarchal, and yet progressives and feminists are very fond of calling their opponents uncivilized and barbaric. They're quite fond of appealing to the notion of civilization and being civilized. Odd, that. Civilization, the very thing itself, is patriarchal.

Off topic I know, interesting nonetheless.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Talorc




I think onequestion is referring to archetype in the literary sense. In classical and historic literature and mythology, heroes are virtually all men and share certain characteristics. He's right in this regard.


Her misunderstanding of archetypes comes from a lack of knowledge there are distinct theories around them and the one your talking about is .... Jungian archetypes

And Yes I'm referring to the mythical hero character however that is not the only theory...

Archetype



a statement, pattern of behavior, or prototype which other statements, patterns of behavior, and objects copy or emulate;
a Platonic philosophical idea referring to pure forms which embody the fundamental characteristics of a thing;
a collectively-inherited unconscious idea, pattern of thought, image, etc., that is universally present in individual psyches, as in Jungian psychology;
or a constantly recurring symbol or motif in literature, painting, or mythology (this usage of the term draws from both comparative anthropology and Jungian archetypal theory).


She has no idea what she's talking but yes your right.




top topics



 
38
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join