Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.

Originally posted by chishuppu
men and women are not equal nor are they the same, women can't beat a man on his scale and a man can't beat a woman on her scale. The way society is structured this issue will never end.

I disagree. Structure is changing as we speak and we can hear boy-men crying all over the place.

Time for boys to become men I think.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

Since this is the metaphysics forum, I'll answer from that perspective. God made man in His image. The entire race of man. Therefore .. men and women are completely equal in God's eyes and therefore they should be in our eyes as well.
]

Equal eh?

Let's see.
That would mean that killing a male is the same as killing a pregnant female and that you would flip a coin against a woman to see who gets the seat in the lifeboat.

Is that what you are saying?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by spy66
We humans don't know true morality. Because we have never had it. We can never know true morality if we never had true morals.

We can argue among us the difference between good and bad morals. But the Irony is that bad morals can be good for some. And good moral can be bad for others. We have problems knowing what morals that are good for everyone at the same time.

Within the system we live under today. We are brought up to be competitors. Competing for wealth and social standards. We are brought up to accept that some have right to have more than others. We are brought up to accept a moral difference between us.

You may not know good morals but some do.
There are the first 5 in the O P.

Do you disagree with them and if so, please place your first few for us to have a look at.

If you choose not to, then quite crying about how you cannot formulate a moral system. That is your problem. Not a problem that all others share.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by jheherrin

Originally posted by Unity_99
Inequality is the root of all evil in the universe and it leads to greed, rape, murder, wars, starvation, and infanticide, it is the most evil thing there is.

Couldn't disagree with this more. I don't believe in 'evil', don't believe anyone knows what the 'root of all evil in the universe' is. And I especially don't believe we are 'equal'. We aren't, we never have been, and we never will be. We are animals, and the strong survive and the weak perish. It's just that simple. Animals in the wild have no concept of your New Age philosophies... the weak are left to their own devices in a herd, even killed. Animals aren't 'evil' either. We do what we do, and one of the things we do naturally is to 'size up' situations, especially people. In the instant that we look at a stranger our subconscious mind will make accessments about that person without any help from our conscious mind. That process isn't 'evil' either.

Life is about survival... it has nothing to do with arbitrary moralism.

Frankly, I wonder when we will start looking at ourselves with some honesty, about our species and our genetic impulses and behaviors as a collective, instead of still mistakenly trying to view things thru the spiritual/religious blinders.

Inequality is evil? It disgusts me that anyone would represent that as some universal truth. It's no wonder we are screwed up as a species. We'd rather believe in some fantastically, grandiose illusion about ourselves than see the truth, even when it's right in front of our noses.

edit on 26-11-2012 by jheherrin because: (no reason given)

I agree with all except this.

"Life is about survival... it has nothing to do with arbitrary moralism."

As we evolve, all we can do is either cooperate or compete.
Competition we would see as evil as it creates a loser whereas cooperation does not have a loser.

What we call moral would thus be cooperation and we are hardwired for that to be our default position. It is better and more moral than competition as it enhances our chances of survival which as you say is our first priority.

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL

The problem with this line of thinking is - human beings are not animals.

Animals do not have the same sentience or thought processes.

Animals do not operate the same sex wise, they only mate once or twice a year.

Another flaw in the "Alpha Male" idea is - humans can change over time. Geek yesterday? Boss today. Big tough guy yesterday? Cripple today. And humans live much longer than animals too.

It's a completely different type of 'system' and humans cannot be compared.

Humans have done better via co operation rather than competition also. Co operation is what built societies. If it was all about competition we'd have killed each other off by now.

You can't compare apples and oranges.

As far as human females being weaker - snort. Are you kidding? It depends upon age and feeding habits. Have you ever seen that "People of Wal Mart" site? It is clear that in the US South as example - that the females are at least triple the size of the males.

Big Strong Male and Weak Slim Female types only exist in the media. Look at average people. Male and female are of sim size and in some cases the female is much larger and stronger.

Regardless of all else - the human operates off it's large brain. And brains trump strength every time. Our History shows this to be true. Little Napoleon commanded his troops. Cleopatra. Pick anyone with smarts. Present day - same thing. It's the smart people calling the shots and making advances - from B. Gates, S. Jobs, Dr. Hawking (a disabled man), to Hillary Clinton, Pelosi, Maddow, Coulter, Palin, to President Obama. And mostly older and more experienced people too - as has also been throughout most of History.

NOT the bulky Schwarzeneggers or Seagals, nor the blindly aggressive types.
Brains. It's what sets us apart from the animals. We operate off of totally different reproductive systems as well. These are major differences between humans and animals.

Too much wrong here to try to correct all in one go.

You have come in in teaching mode and for me to try to teach your errors all at once would just piss you off.
I need to have you come back in student mode. For that you have to be able to recognize when you have made a wrong statement.

Let me give you this link and if you cannot recant on a minor points, humans as animals and sex, then there is no point in my trying to get you to recant on your other errors. Apply what you see to you opening statement and recant. If not. Thanks for your reply.

www.youtube.com...

While at it. Let me add something that says that in some ways, some animals are more innovative than we ever so bright human animals are.

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL

reply to post by Greatest I am


Life is a testing ground, its like a play and we step into roles, the energy of the universe already having been formed. De je Vue is a marker for the already set path of your life, not a good thing. We're expected to change it, to make everything negative, unequal and harmful to others turn around. Our weakesses turn to strength.

Its like snakes and ladders.

You can be a primitive, and an animal, or beast. Our body has codings that give us anger and Beast responses, domination and dog eat dog, and we also have equally the Inner Michael, the Angel, that feels stricken when we see a impoverished child and strives to search for ways to help, the Love and Higher Ground.

We have choices to make here, up Jacob's Ladder to the Eutopia's and Heights, and no, you don't a handmaiden there, you have to have integrity and pull your own, you need to be a gift to others. Or down the snake.

I myself don't value the Beast Responses, and am striving so hard to remain conscious and notice reactions.

Good luck! Pulling for you to make it up that ladder too! Pray frequently for all to be safe, and progressing, growing their Love and putting it into action. My prayers are with you.

Inequality is down the snake by the way.



lifes a show



Walk through the fire

edit to add: was surprised when the kids started watching Buffy and going back how much they put in the show.

And we're walking through the purifying fire here. This is "the valley darkness" the master test, but fear no evil. LOVE is holding its hand and helping us through the fire.

Not the Beast. We're not meant to ever be primitives here.

Oh by the way, Buffy? She's your inner Michael. Defeat your inner dragon, the beast, the inequality, the hate, anger, abuse, domination, and all that is lacking or weakness in your soul. Grow, don't shrink, your light. And learn to deprogram. Those running the world, and the Brotherhood/CIA, they are not your friends. Take out all that is inside you, and ask Love and Goodness above to guide you to the right choice each day, not the easy one, usually the hard one, integrity.

Give, don't take.

Love don't ask to be loved.

Respect everyone equally, don't expect to be respected.

Integrity.

Domination is the Devil's Work.

And something else, those songs made me have to watch that episode again, season 6, episode 7, Once More With Feeling. Even the title gives the whole song away, and the purpose of the show. It is all about earth and our tests here. Its all about our lives. The title shows its recapping the shows purpose!

The next one is all about forgetting who you are, and so, the good and bad and inbetween all become family. That is also what we do here, and the good is supposed to love and heal up, show the way, of equality and unconditonal love, kindness, growth, to the others. Earth is a big counseling session for a dysfunctional family.

Here is the thing so uniquely interesting about that show. Buffy/Michael/Christ, your inner Archangel of Light and Goodness must defeat the inner dragon/draco/weaknesses.

And in every generation a slayer is born.....SHE. The slayer is always Female.

Now that is not a sexually identity, body suits don't count. They're dust.

But Mother's energy is this: Equality/Freedom, wedded, never gives up on the black sheeps, not retaliation, not severe punishment, REDEMPTION, FORGIVENESS, UNCONDITIONAL LOVE.

And no we're not going to hide our lights under any NWO slave burqua's again.

Set your inner Buffy/Michael/Christ FREE.

I suggest those who want to put down women to feel bigger men inside, watch a little Buffy!

Sigh.

Regards
DL

Re-reading the OP, it appears the argument is much more complicated than it first appeared to me.

It seems to start off with an argument for a matriarchy, but then seems to eventually reverse this by arguing for a matriarchy (based on an ideal of biological femininity) within a benign patriarchy.

Great thread.

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by halfoldman
Interesting post, although the second clip is a bit long for now.

In the OP however I'm a bit confused, because it seems to suggest that women should be respected because they "incubate life".

So when they're not pregnant, or beyond getting pregnant (or infertile), they are disposable, because that justification then no longer exists?
Pregnancy is the only reason given in the OP to respect women, so when they are not "human incubators", or unable to be so, then what justification remains to respect them by this reasoning?

And why should this make men, particularly "alpha males" more expendable via "sacrifice'?
What is meant here by sacrifice?
Sending them to war in the name of "tribalism" and the "conservative tribal chiefs"?

Why should men be happy with this?
Without their healthy seed there would be no female incubation.
So they are crucial to the process, and therefore just as worthy of preservation.
In fact men have no real biological clock, so by that reasoning one should rather send infertile and post-menopausal women to war, because their procreative function is over in any case.
Men could still procreate at that age.

So why sacrifice alpha males?
This seems more like an argument by weaker heterosexual males to get rid of alpha male competition (send them to war, or another dangerous job), and thus to have access to more women for themselves.
Not that I blame the weaker heterosexual specimens for trying to do this, since they sometimes do have quite a horrible time.

edit on 13-11-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

Yes. As the incubators of life for 9 months, they deserve more care than the 3 second it takes men to get them pregnant. You might have noted that care/harm is the first principle of morality. Unless you do not agree with it and the author. If not, please give your first principle of morality. To think that men should only protect their mate while she is pregnant and shift that protection to themselves when she is not would be men just using women and certainly shows that they have their benefits at heart and not those of women.

But that is not the only reason. Women bond with their children while carrying them to birth and are generally better than men at child rearing. Just check the numbers of deadbeat dads and compare them to unwed mothers. Women are the backbones of family. Not men.

Women are also weaker physically than men. You speak of war times and I would ask you, who are better suited to fight for a nation?
Men or women?

Sure, some jobs are not strength related and women might do better at these than men but when the boots hit the ground, men are better fighting companions than women because they might use that extra strength to kill the opponent or carry you to safety.

Regards
DL

Yeah, I agree, women do need respect and a rationale for their humanity that is not tied to their fertility!
I see no other rationale in the OP to honor women apart from the potential fertility of young women.
That's what worries me, because there's no sense that women could also sometimes be equal and superior to men as people - their "superiority" seems to come from seeing them as an oven for a bun!

I wonder if such attitudes were not around when "deadbeat dads" had "3 second" fun?

Otherwise I agree that men should be around for their kids, and that men are best suited for direct combat roles.

Maybe a time will come where all armies are gender-mixed, or perhaps we'll have robot armies.
Nevertheless, until that day it's just too unfair to send women into direct combat situations.

I'm not sure what it all means in practice, since some men are always necessary for sperm to fertilize the wondrous womb.

Perhaps it means that men should bow to their women at the front door, and then they will sweep them off their feet, and carry them to the kitchen.

Screw this "man" vs "woman" crap. They are all humans and should be treated with equality (unless they are handicap or something)...

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.



Should the religious and political right take up this best moral position and demand that equality be denied to all women and demand that they be given their rightful and natural position above men?


Regards
DL

AAHHAHAHA
I'm sorry this one had me screaming. ur saying men should trust their authority to women? allow women to lead us??

makes me melt with laughter.. u go ahead.. NOT ME!!

Originally posted by halfoldman
Re-reading the OP, it appears the argument is much more complicated than it first appeared to me.

It seems to start off with an argument for a matriarchy, but then seems to eventually reverse this by arguing for a matriarchy (based on an ideal of biological femininity) within a benign patriarchy.

Great thread.

Thanks.

Not benign though.
Pro-active in fact. Men are to protect it and sustain it.
That is what gives it sanctity. Our sacrifice. Especially from men.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by halfoldman

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by halfoldman
Interesting post, although the second clip is a bit long for now.

In the OP however I'm a bit confused, because it seems to suggest that women should be respected because they "incubate life".

So when they're not pregnant, or beyond getting pregnant (or infertile), they are disposable, because that justification then no longer exists?
Pregnancy is the only reason given in the OP to respect women, so when they are not "human incubators", or unable to be so, then what justification remains to respect them by this reasoning?

And why should this make men, particularly "alpha males" more expendable via "sacrifice'?
What is meant here by sacrifice?
Sending them to war in the name of "tribalism" and the "conservative tribal chiefs"?

Why should men be happy with this?
Without their healthy seed there would be no female incubation.
So they are crucial to the process, and therefore just as worthy of preservation.
In fact men have no real biological clock, so by that reasoning one should rather send infertile and post-menopausal women to war, because their procreative function is over in any case.
Men could still procreate at that age.

So why sacrifice alpha males?
This seems more like an argument by weaker heterosexual males to get rid of alpha male competition (send them to war, or another dangerous job), and thus to have access to more women for themselves.
Not that I blame the weaker heterosexual specimens for trying to do this, since they sometimes do have quite a horrible time.

edit on 13-11-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

Yes. As the incubators of life for 9 months, they deserve more care than the 3 second it takes men to get them pregnant. You might have noted that care/harm is the first principle of morality. Unless you do not agree with it and the author. If not, please give your first principle of morality. To think that men should only protect their mate while she is pregnant and shift that protection to themselves when she is not would be men just using women and certainly shows that they have their benefits at heart and not those of women.

But that is not the only reason. Women bond with their children while carrying them to birth and are generally better than men at child rearing. Just check the numbers of deadbeat dads and compare them to unwed mothers. Women are the backbones of family. Not men.

Women are also weaker physically than men. You speak of war times and I would ask you, who are better suited to fight for a nation?
Men or women?

Sure, some jobs are not strength related and women might do better at these than men but when the boots hit the ground, men are better fighting companions than women because they might use that extra strength to kill the opponent or carry you to safety.

Regards
DL

Yeah, I agree, women do need respect and a rationale for their humanity that is not tied to their fertility!
I see no other rationale in the OP to honor women apart from the potential fertility of young women.
That's what worries me, because there's no sense that women could also sometimes be equal and superior to men as people - their "superiority" seems to come from seeing them as an oven for a bun!

I wonder if such attitudes were not around when "deadbeat dads" had "3 second" fun?

Otherwise I agree that men should be around for their kids, and that men are best suited for direct combat roles.

Maybe a time will come where all armies are gender-mixed, or perhaps we'll have robot armies.
Nevertheless, until that day it's just too unfair to send women into direct combat situations.

I'm not sure what it all means in practice, since some men are always necessary for sperm to fertilize the wondrous womb.

Perhaps it means that men should bow to their women at the front door, and then they will sweep them off their feet, and carry them to the kitchen.

If women ruled. There would be less war. Perhaps none over time.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by arpgme
Screw this "man" vs "woman" crap. They are all humans and should be treated with equality (unless they are handicap or something)...

Then men should stop opressing women for starters. Especially the Abrahamic cults.

Religion is womens greatest enemy.

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL

Originally posted by 0mage

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.



Should the religious and political right take up this best moral position and demand that equality be denied to all women and demand that they be given their rightful and natural position above men?


Regards
DL

AAHHAHAHA
I'm sorry this one had me screaming. ur saying men should trust their authority to women? allow women to lead us??

makes me melt with laughter.. u go ahead.. NOT ME!!

Scream for all the wars men have fought and died for and the peace that we enjoyed before men took over.

If Romney would have won, even your woman's vagina would not be off base to religion.
Yep, men are great leaders.

Regards
DL