"TradWives" Triggering Unhappy Feminists

[mrttao]

Don't be silly you can say "all" if the vast majority of a group believe something. Am I wrong if I say all Nazis hate Jews, if you can find one who joined and said "Hey I don't actually hate jews I just joined for the bennefits."

this is a fair point.

But while true, it is a much better idea to say "vast majority" instead of "all" just to avoid people having gotcha moment for "debunking" you. You are simply opening yourself up for trouble by using the word all

 

[Abhorsen]

Atheist organizations could exist to fullfill the goals of atheists. If for example they wanted to remove school prayer or not have to engage in religious rituals in public or whatever. That at least would be tied to atheism instead of what you have now.

No, that's the thing. Atheists aren't a group, any more than non-Christians are a group. The ones that think they are a group are the Religious ones.

I'm sorry I thought the non aggression principle was like an alliance with society and others. "I won't hurt you if you won't hurt me."

Are you saying that the the NAP requires you to not violate the rights of someone who has violated your rights?

No. Because then I wouldn't be the aggressor. It requires me not to initiate. For example, I'm not allowed to go into someone's store and steal from the cash register. But if someone steals my wallet, it's okay for me to steal it back, or shoot him if he runs away with it and I can't safely tackle him for it, etc.

It's about not aggressing not non-violence. For example, the guys from Ruby Ridge shooting and killing the Federal Agent is totally morally sound.

The reason it's not an alliance with society is because I never asked permission of society for this, and it works independently of what society wants. Just like a Christian living in a non-Christian society, so too does a libertarian live in a non-Libertarian society: we stick to our morals regardless of what the law or society says. When Churches stayed open despite Covid lockdown orders, or libertarians trading bitcoin in ways the SEC hates, it's not a request for permission.

Well that makes it even more illogical and not based on reason at all, it makes it qasi religious you must believe these axioms and that they are morally good.

Exactly! This is correct. There is lack of logic to get to step one! But then, religious people make a similar step of non-logic to get to "There is a god, and it is my god."

Now one can have some justifications for that lack of logic, but ultimately, you can't get there via pure reason. No one can get further than "I think, therefore I am" by pure reason.

 

[Simonbob]

"Fairness and justice are human concepts. They do not exist in nature or in any magic of my kenning. I call it a redeeming quality of your species to try to rise above its environment, especially when considering all your limitations." - Baron, red dragon of the Dire Straits


I still don't know where I found that one, but it's pretty good. It's also true. In a pure material world, good and evil is entirely relative.

It's good for me, so I want it. It's bad for you, so I don't care. But, you can't run a society on that. You need shared values. You need trust, and for that you need reasons to trust. The more advanced tech, the larger the base needed, the more people need to trust. And, for the vast majority of people, they need that framework to hold together, and for that, they need a God.

Even amongst intelectuals, there aren't that many who can create, and sustain, morals from reason. Ans, those who can, cannot form a society. Attempts at doing so have resulted in the Woke faith, nothing based on reality.



To boil it down? You might be able to create reasonable morals, but you're not the average.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

"Fairness and justice are human concepts. They do not exist in nature or in any magic of my kenning. I call it a redeeming quality of your species to try to rise above its environment, especially when considering all your limitations." - Baron, red dragon of the Dire Straits


I still don't know where I found that one, but it's pretty good. It's also true. In a pure material world, good and evil is entirely relative.

It's good for me, so I want it. It's bad for you, so I don't care. But, you can't run a society on that. You need shared values. You need trust, and for that you need reasons to trust. The more advanced tech, the larger the base needed, the more people need to trust. And, for the vast majority of people, they need that framework to hold together, and for that, they need a God.

Even amongst intelectuals, there aren't that many who can create, and sustain, morals from reason. Ans, those who can, cannot form a society. Attempts at doing so have resulted in the Woke faith, nothing based on reality.



To boil it down? You might be able to create reasonable morals, but you're not the average.

IMO there is a God but nobody wants to serve him because he values the servant over the King, individual and community over empire and society. Humility over strength, peace over conflict.


As for creating a god, the problem is that you need a god that is equally as just and trustworthy and humans suck at that in fact most gods were created in the image of the empire that made them. The society was created first and the god was created not as a role model for the society to follow but as a proclamation of that societies perfection and superiority. Fear and force only work so long as a deteruint so what happens when people would rather take their chances in the wilderness than to continue in the society.

"Well that wasn't a REAL society"?

 

[Captain X]

I mean hell, just in here I ran into captain X who called me a christian religious nut for my various opinions.

Only because those opinions resemble those of Christian religious nuts. Since you made me aware that you aren't Christian, I've corrected myself by simply referring you to a petty little tyrant.

 

[LordsFire]

The athiests I've run into over time could be split into two real groups.

One, is the mild ones, myself included. The kind of person who thinks "I don't really beleve in God, or anything, but something beyond us is out there." Tend to be a bit depressed, and more than a little lost. Not really judgemental, doesn't talk about it much, unless you ask, but isn't all that sure of anything in supernatural stuff. Often not that sure about anything they're not an expert on. Tends to just go along, because why bother fighting? There's no reason.

The term for such of you is more 'agnostic' than 'atheist,' and I sometimes use the term 'agnostic/apathetic.' More concerned with the day-to-day tangibles of life than philosophy or theology.

I've known some very polite 'soft atheists' and agnostics like what you're talking about. Little to no active malice, but also generally not helping build a stable society.

The "creating hell on earth" stuff I think would be the combination of Atheism and what we can all Utopianism: attempting to create some kind of "perfect" society, in an imperfect world. The Atheism removes the moral constraints that would otherwise hold them back from a lot of what they are willing to do towards this impossible goal.

In my personal experience, the type of people who are most mouthy and in-your-face about their disbelief in God, also strongly tend towards being outspoken in their love of, and desire for, big totalitarian government, the more intrusive and liberty-restricting the better, banning all civilian ownership of firearms, mandatory this, that and the next thing, etc etc etc. They all support the vaxx of course, simply because it comes from "The Government". The bigger the jackboots with which the regime stomps on ordinary people, the better, in their mindset.
Not nice people.

While individual atheists certainly don't need to have utopian ambitions, I've yet to see an atheist ideological movement that doesn't embrace some kind of utopianism, and almost invariably, see religious people, usually especially and specifically Christians in the West, as what is keeping them back from achieving heaven on earth.

When you remove the divine from the picture, you will turn men into functional gods, and that isn't an abstract 'men.'

Some specific men will rule over society like they are gods, and the results of this are always wretched.

 

[Simonbob]

The term for such of you is more 'agnostic' than 'atheist,' and I sometimes use the term 'agnostic/apathetic.' More concerned with the day-to-day tangibles of life than philosophy or theology.

I've known some very polite 'soft atheists' and agnostics like what you're talking about. Little to no active malice, but also generally not helping build a stable society.

I worked out a while ago, I don't really know that much. The area's I do know something, they're pretty broad, but that's only because I'm always looking. Most people just don't ask, past a certain point.

It takes time, energy, and the willingness to accept you're wrong, and that's hard. It also means I don't have that stable foundation of thought to build a society off.

While individual atheists certainly don't need to have utopian ambitions, I've yet to see an atheist ideological movement that doesn't embrace some kind of utopianism, and almost invariably, see religious people, usually especially and specifically Christians in the West, as what is keeping them back from achieving heaven on earth.

When you remove the divine from the picture, you will turn men into functional gods, and that isn't an abstract 'men.'

Some specific men will rule over society like they are gods, and the results of this are always wretched.

It really does seem as if men need a force they cannot avoid, a all powerful God to keep them in line.

As long as they think they'll be rewarded/punished in the afterlife, anyway.

 

[Abhorsen]

While individual atheists certainly don't need to have utopian ambitions, I've yet to see an atheist ideological movement that doesn't embrace some kind of utopianism, and almost invariably, see religious people, usually especially and specifically Christians in the West, as what is keeping them back from achieving heaven on earth.

This is very true. By it's nature, atheism shouldn't be a movement, or organized at all. It's like all the people who don't watch sports deciding to do something together: it's probably because they are all nerds and have that in common, not because they hate sports. Any movement of atheists, therefore, has something else binding them together, hanging on for a ride, and that's what has actually created the movement.

When you remove the divine from the picture, you will turn men into functional gods, and that isn't an abstract 'men.'

Some specific men will rule over society like they are gods, and the results of this are always wretched.

This, however, is completely missing the point. There's little relation between removing divinity and turning men into gods. It's only one of a dozen ways this has happened, some were religious in nature, some weren't, some were antireligious. All of them sucked. The problem isn't one specific way this is done, it is that it is done at all.

Some religions offer a partial defense against it, in that they say god is not on earth and so people on earth are equal, and by putting god first, you don't exalt a man. But then that can be subverted, and it has been, by cult leaders and rulers.

 

[Jormungandr]

Basically, women are being exposed that they're the ones who bully other women the most in the workplace, and they don't like it.
It also goes into their tactics of using "sexual harassment" claims to destroy men they don't like in revenge since they were reprimanded for very real things they've done e.g. sexually harassing men, not doing work, breaking procedures and rules, et cetera.
The anecdotes in the comments section from men and women are enlightening and saddening, too.
It's all backfiring on them in the post-MeToo era, haha.

 

[Cherico]

any one who has ever been to a co ed high school or middle school and is honest will tell you no one is meaner to women then women. And shit as cruel as guys can be to each other what women will do often is worse.

 

[Jormungandr]

any one who has ever been to a co ed high school or middle school and is honest will tell you no one is meaner to women then women. And shit as cruel as guys can be to each other what women will do often is worse.

Trust me, I know personally: Most of my friend group in high-school (11--16) were girls, including my three best friends. The drama could be nightmarish at times.

 

[King Arts]

Trust me, I know personally: Most of my friend group in high-school (11--16) were girls, including my three best friends. The drama could be nightmarish at times.

Your high school went from 11 to 16 what?

 

[ATP]

Why are we acting like our choice is either Sharia law or continued wokism?

Becouse i do not see any christian politicians left? Our Kaczyński do not count,he is good socialist.

 

[DarthOne]

I can see it or a flavour of it in some countries that have more conservative roots, yeah (e.g. Eastern Europe), but on the whole I hope not.

Despite what a lot of people think, religion isn't a cure all pill for all the shit that's plaguing the West at the moment, and religion being dominant in prior centuries wasn't all sunshine and rainbows; take off the rose-tinted glasses.

Although it might improve things in some areas, we'd be trading one crapsack for another.

We live in an imperfect world. A Fallen World, if you will. Can you really expect anything different?

 

[Bacle]

We live in an imperfect world. A Fallen World, if you will. Can you really expect anything different?

There was never a utopia or Eden to fall from, is the difference in perspective for many.

Visions of a utopia, be they in the past (Judeo-Christian faiths/several eastern religions) or the future (Communism/Progressivism), never do anything but set unattainable goals for society at large and cause people to do horrible things in the name of achieving that utopia, or recreating it.

Ignore impulses to strive for a utopia or compare the world to a utopia; utopia's have never existed, except as control devices for populations to strive for futily while lining the pockets/doing the bidding of the less naive.

Anyone trying to sell you a vision of a utopia is trying to control your mind and desires, never forget that, no matter what part of the religious or political spectrum they are on.

 

[Cherico]

There was never a utopia or Eden to fall from, is the difference in perspective for many.

Visions of a utopia, be they in the past (Judeo-Christian faiths/several eastern religions) or the future (Communism/Progressivism), never do anything but set unattainable goals for society at large and cause people to do horrible things in the name of achieving that utopia, or recreating it.

Ignore impulses to strive for a utopia or compare the world to a utopia; utopia's have never existed, except as control devices for populations to strive for futily while lining the pockets/doing the bidding of the less naive.

Anyone trying to sell you a vision of a utopia is trying to control your mind and desires, never forget that, no matter what part of the religious or political spectrum they are on.

Im actually going to agree with Bacle on this.

The world is a series of trade offs, no matter what choices you make you will have to sacrifice something to gain it. And not doing anything has a price as well its just life. And the reason why we as humans will never get along is because we all value different things and have different core values and thus will always fight about decisions based upon that.

 

[Jormungandr]

Im actually going to agree with Bacle on this.

The world is a series of trade offs, no matter what choices you make you will have to sacrifice something to gain it. And not doing anything has a price as well its just life. And the reason why we as humans will never get along is because we all value different things and have different core values and thus will always fight about decisions based upon that.

Yup! In the past, people dissatisfied with how their current society was going would either a) overthrow said society in a revolution or b) fuck off somewhere else to build their own.

B can't be done anymore -- probably not ever again unless there's an apocalypse and the world's land is up for grab again for the survivors, or we achieve FTL and cheap, affordable colonization becomes a thing (like in many sci-fi series' settings and backstories).

 

[Cherico]

Yup! In the past, people dissatisfied with how their current society was going would either a) overthrow said society in a revolution or b) fuck off somewhere else to build their own.

B can't be done anymore -- probably not ever again unless there's an apocalypse and the world's land is up for grab again for the survivors, or we achieve FTL and cheap, affordable colonization becomes a thing (like in many sci-fi series' settings and backstories).

I think were honestly in an awkward middle period of human history, and once the tech for space travel isn't in its infancy, were going to see a lot of people split off and do their own thing again. You dont need FTL to do that by the way our solar system is fucking huge.

 

[Typhonis]

The problem is Space is not a safe place. On Earth, you didn't have to worry about radiation bursts and having breathable air. Space? Well is not kind. Also...people would still be dependent on Earth for certain elements we need to not only survive but reproduce.

 

[Scottty]

B can't be done anymore -- probably not ever again unless there's an apocalypse and the world's land is up for grab again for the survivors,

Could happen....