reply to post by Pinke
Ted Haggard engaged in gay sex repeatedly. This doesn't mean the Evangelicals philosophy supports gay sex.
Are you #ing serious? I'm about exasperated talking with you. I can't tell if it's a sheer lack of respect for truth, or an absence of moral
sensibility, but please listen: there is no equivalence between a haggardly Christian like Ted Haggard and a millennia old Buddhist tradition promoted
by Chogyam Trungpa.
If you wanted to mention an antinomian current within Christianity, you could have went with the myriad gnostic movements from ancient time till now;
but still, you aim for a "rightest" as if Ted Haggard meant anything to me.
I have serious problems with the lefts moral positions, and apparently, you are the worse possible person - the very definition of the radical leftist
I have no respect for - to speak about this with.
Humans can naturally treat difference with hostility.
Here's how I see it. Nature can be looked at metaphysically - in terms of its basic patterns
or literally, in terms of what "appears" to our
sight. Those with conservative viewpoints by definition incline to the former viewpoint, while those with a liberal, or "leftist" viewpoint, incline
to the latter. An example: I argue that left and right, rich and poor, good and evil, are basic properties of existence. They are integral to our
experience of the world. Upon being born, our first experience of the world, as described by Jean Piaget, creates a subject-object dichotomy - a
dichotomy that subsists throughout our lives. Now, I think it's important to acknowledge this dichotomy in order to live in "harmony" with nature -
and since i see pattern as projecting meaning - with natures Creator. So, for example, the Hebrew Bible uses specifically two names for God: Elohim
and YHWH; the former has a gematria (numerical value) equal with the Hebrew word Hateva - Nature (86). Every appearance of this name in the Hebrew
scriptures is used to stylistically to convey a truncated, paganeqsue notion of deity; Elohim is the cumulative powers of nature - the very term, from
the Canaanite "el" means 'powers'. Conversely, the term YHWH, is distinct; so distinct that it's attached to only one "special' people - the
Israelites. YHWH is the God of Israel; he selects, he distinguishes. Of course, this is all just theology. But profound theology indeed! The Hebrews
ensconced within this concept everything associated with feelings which arise with personhood: specialness, individuality, moral perception, and most
prominent of all, a deep personal connection with God.
Again, this shows the nature of the world. We are part of a impersonal process called nature, natural selection, and various forces; but in front of
this, we are persons, with ideas, beliefs, feelings, attitudes, likes and dislikes. This is the deepest dichotomy - the I verse the It.
Thus, in my political views, I am a pro pluralism. I have no interest to stymie the radical punk on the street with nose rings, tattoos etc; that's
how he or she wants to be. At the same time, I have no problem with the ultra orthodox Jew clad from head to toe in traditional religious garb. Could
a leftist say that? No. Unfortunately, the leftist (a generalization, bear with me) ethos is about "opening" people up, which translated means:
opening themselves up to the concept of "openness", which implies a closing towards those who don't fit that neat myopic criteria.
I don't want to change people. I want people to let other people to "live and let live". This applies AS MUCH to leftist liberals as to conservatives.
For instance, an idea which is utterly devoid of wisdom is continuous change. When a university professor says (as one of my professors said) the new
generation revises the values of the old generation, that sounds absurd to me. There are some valuex which retain eternal validity; instead of being
stifled and rankled by boredom, people such as that resort to concepts like "art" to revise the old, believing that each new generation should smash
to pieces the ideas of the old. Wheres the morality here? There's none. The ideas can be stupid, harmful, destructive - as most of them are - but they
do it for the sake of innovation, for satisfying their artistic urge for difference. There's a deep laceration between themselves and the world.
Personally, I'm an artistic, beauty-loving guy, but I don't absolutely worship it. I'm more simple: simplicity has its beauty. Destroying morality is
ugly, evil, and inflicts pain on innocent people. Viktor Frankl once said that the Statue of Liberty should be flanked by a a statue of responsibility
on the west coast; HOW APT! It's the west, our impatient, incorrigible destructiveness, which needs to understand the value of responsibility.
I am pro balance, pro finding a middle-path, between biology and environment (and the nether zone called 'free will'), personal needs and the needs of
others, quiet time and play time etc. I think people who cling to either extreme - radical leftists and fundamentalist religious people - are off
kilter, intoxicated by their ego; the former in their lustful search for bliss and happiness - shutting out anything that interferes, and the latter
with cold hard regimented religious norms and laws, squenching the human, and animal part.
To say otherwise I think is over confidence.
And I think that is wishful thinking, designed to stave off the inevitable fact that cultural norms are largely conditioned by biology and psychology.
biology -> psychology -> society
Unfortunately for you (and an utter travesty for reason-loving people)
politics -> everything else.
Your preference for "wanting" something to be a way actually leads you to completely illogical and unsound conclusions. I rounded out for you how
biology influences psychology - via biochemicals. And the importance of biology in forming basic tasks - such as a woman's natural urge for
parentings, nurturing - and thus, preferring academic fields which fulfill that biologically evolved need; still, for you, that doesn't suffice as
evidence. There's still some "dark zone" which will be interminably pending, lest you have to sacrifice the golden calf of ridiculous beliefs in
gender differences being more biology related, than environment related.
Recently we've been having a resurgence in male grooming (the metrosexual), pink used to be a boy's color, blue used to be a woman's, women have
worked along side men at multiple moments in history ... Nowadays a strong woman athlete is thought to be a lesbian, but there used to be a legitimate
concern that a woman athlete could unleash immoral heterosexual passions ...
Those views are all extremely; furthermore, they don't touch on any of the areas I brought up.
Furthermore, Pink probably is preferred by the majority of women compared to the majority of men (this is a generalization based on statistical
patterns; i mention this for clarity) likewise, more men probably prefer blue than pink. Again, this is probably biology related; it may further be
connected to that metaphysical, or ontological duality I've been mentioning. Thus, instead of these norms being "imposed' by a patriarchal system (as
you probably imagine) it was most probably developed based on a discovery that men and women inclined in these different directions. And I'm not
talking about pink and blue; The fact that women have historically been home with the children has been decried by feminists as elitist and sexist;
indeed, woman should have the option to work or not work. But that doesn't change that naturally, they prefer the house, prefer to raise their
children, prefer to tend to the things of the family. A woman looks far more natural, far more at ease doing this than a man does. Of course, that
doesn't mean a man couldn't also do it. It's just the man is the equivalent of the women who prefer male things - they are an exception from the norm;
a 20% which depart from the 80% majority.
Just to anticipate a possible objection you might have: no, I don't think it would be wise to destroy these norms, since they are so obviously rooted
in our biologies. To strive against biology is akin to striving against gravity - you'll fall, hit the ground, and finito. There are laws that exist
which we must acknowledge and pay deference to. This is one of them.
Unfortunately your net is far too wide spread in this conversation, it's messy and without focus. We have religion on the table, leftist politics,
gender identity, the belief that multiple religions are nihilistic, and the direction of where leftist politics intend to take to the institution of
marriage ... I could write 100, 000 words on most of those topics ...
I'd be happy to focus on just one topic. However, look at the title of thread: it deals with a very "general" subject matter that seeks to point out
patterns. But, again, I will gladly focus on just one topic.
I lived in a Latino neighborhood, I wouldn't expect other people to expect me to look and act Latino. I don't care who the mayor is! It's
expectations on myself which matter, and people's flexibility in their expectations and acceptance of behaviors.
I;m not asking for your personal opinion; or rather, I was hoping your opinion would be a reasonable one. Any person knows that a town council, or
it's mayor, should reflect the towns demographics. If Canada always had a francophone prime minister, logically, and quite justifiably, English
speaking Canadians could object and ask for an English speaking prime minister.
Why such extremes?
What extremes? Noting and incorporating evidence from scientific studies would be rational, not extreme. In this case, it simply means acknowledging
the copious evidence showing that men and women are different - want different things, pursue different careers. It's no coincidence that men pretty
much don't care about Female athletics (besides other females) or society in general cares to watch male models at the price is right. There are
things which each sex naturally excels in: men are stronger, more athletic, and therefore more interesting to watch playing sports; women are more
tender, supple, and elegant looking, and so more pleasurable to watch in fancy clothing, or a bikini. Why deny these facts or whitewash them as
"cultural" conditioning when they are obviously facts of nature?
With further research and effort, said differences could be nurtured in schools and parenting, and culturally we could adapt over a long period of
time to understand 'the others' who aren't the majority.
Again, I never said there wasn't a place for the minority groups. The internet makes room for such people; but why make an issue where one doesn't
exist? What do you expect? For majorities to take an interest in minorities beyond their statistical presence? That's unnatural. Male sports will
always be more interesting; only political correctness could coerce people to watch female sports and "appreciate" it in the sense that would satisfy
feminists. But again, it would be FAKE - not desirable, not something emanating from the 'want' of the individual, but compelled by the idiocy of
edit on 17-1-2013 by dontreally because: (no reason given)