When two worldviews collide.

[Paidiske]

I think a patriarchy is a biological fact of reality. Feminism, is on it's face, an absurdity. All rights you have, privileges you enjoy, we're granted by men. There never has been a nation nor state where women rose up to overthrow anyone and claim power. Should you have nothing but women in positions of power, and upon the discovery of an unresolvable impass with another nation, you would need men to fight. Should a great mass of men decide tomorrow that you have no rights, you will have no rights, unless you find a great mass of men to protect them for you.

Well, at least you're honest.

I would have thought that a movement that could make progress on its aims, not by violence and domination but by persuasion and cooperation, might be seen as a good thing...

Why not?

Mostly because employers are wedded to very rigid (and unhealthy) employment models.

If so....why do you care more about the group that's murdered less? Why wouldn't you care more about men?

Dismantling patriarchy would benefit both men and women.

Don't quote childhood sexual abuse stats at me after citing Judith Butler. She argued in favor of pedophilia.

Citation, please. I am not aware of any such argument put forward by Butler.

 

[rjs330]

I think we should look at countries that use lethal injections for executions. Much more humane.
I didn't know you supported the death penalty.
Oh, I don't. I just think we should be doing it better.

Yeah, I'd be confused as well...

Let's look at this shall we?

Me- I don't think kids should be medically transitioned. Period.

Wpath- We should medically transition kids. We'll make some age recommendations for a few things. Well make some recommendations but no one needs to follow them and we make no requirement at all. Look at all our research that supports such a thing.

Countries- We'll follow Wpath guidelines, sorta kinda do what we want. After all the research supports it.

Time goes on-

Me- We shouldn't be transitioning kids at all.

Wpath- We are going to now remove any age recommendations

Countries- we think we jumped the gun on this. The research was bad and totally unreliable. We are going to stop transing kids. There will be exceptions for tightly controlled research purposes with strict rules for it. Cause we kinda screwed up.

Me-Im still against medical transitioning for kids so at least countries are moving the right direction on this. It's better that nothing. It's way better than WPATH and way better than what it was. Perhaps with the experimenting and research on kids they'll come to the realization they shouldn't be medically transitioning kids. Maybe other countries like the US will realize they've been screwing it up too and follow the ways of the other countries. Much much better than before. And someday maybe we can stop it all together.

You- You're so confused.

Me-LOL.

 

[rjs330]

Why does this question still assume that full time is the default, or the best option? We could put it the other way; why remove a job-sharing arrangement in order to accommodate a full-timer?

Seriously? Cause a full timer needs a full time job. A part timer needs a part time job. It's much more difficult to find two part timers for a specific jobs than one full timer. Far more people needing part time jobs.

Why? Why not interview anyone interested in job sharing and offer that arrangement to two strong candidates?

Because you are more likely to find a single full timer as a best candidate before you find two part timers.

You are not going to make any changes on a discussion forum. You need to go it in real life with real people and real businesses. You could be the catalyst. If there are others out there who agree with you they could be the ones to run the show with your backing.

Go ahead and show how it will work. Make it happen.

 

[Aussie Pete]

In discussing some of the moral issues facing society such as gender, sex, race, Rights, identity politics ect relating to how we as a society should structure ourselves I have found that a polarisation is happening between two broad worldviews. On the one side the Left which I think is more likely to be athiest or more pluralistic about belief and on the other is the Right which are more conservative and traditional and more likely to be Christain. Though I think there is degrees of variance where some will also be open to opposing views to some degree.

But it seems things have become more polarised is recent times deue to society moving away from a Christain worldview to a secular one. In the past there was more middle ground and basically people I think were more traditional had belief and progressives were seen as out of step. I think today the Left has gained a lot of ground mainly due to a reaction to percieved past injustices by traditionalist or Christains and being more open to alternative ideas.

In the past Western societies were based on Christain values but in the last few decades God and Christainity has been rejected and in its place the State has become the arbitor of societal morals and infringed more on peoples private lives. Of course a lot has happened in that time with social media which I think has had a profound impact on thinking undermining truth and has given individuals and groups much power to push their views and influence governments and society.

But the result of all this is that there is a growing division between the Christian Worldview and the Secular Worldview to the point that they clash even violently like people want to destroy Christains aned opposing views and it seems the State is actively siding with the a secular position with the help of certain lobbyist. They have been actively dismantaling Christainity and taking God completely out of the picture in our institutions and public life generally, I should say its not always just Christains but also traditionalist and others who believe in the Truths that the West was built upon such as Enlightement and Democracy. Many on the Left also seem to support some sort of Marxism so this polarisation seems to be political and religious.

I guess our present situation is also the result of Postmodernism the idea of tearing down the old truths and archetypes of the West and society has become more individualistic and relative. Its a complex combination of factors but the thing that stands out for me is that there seems to be a showdown brewing between Christain and traditionalist and the Secularist and the Left and I think the Left is winning at the moment. I can see this continuing where Christainity is pushed to the fringes.

So we are at a point for the first time in a long time in our history where societies efforts to rid themselves of God and Christainity will see secularist and non believers outnumbering Christains and completely rejecting God from society.

But is this new World completely devoid of belief or is society replacing God and Christainity with some new religion, a secular religion which has been able to grow disguised as something else like some new utopia that promises to do away with injustice and inequality and bring people true happiness. I think so as it seems that peoples reaction to Christainity and God today isn't just about a new way but is tied to their identity and debates are often full of feelings even to the point of wanting to destroy others who disagree,

So I think this is a fight for Truth and there can only be one Truth. But today truth has lost all meaning and personal truth has become the only truth. But I think the Truth as in the one Truth we all know is real will shine through in the end, but its going to be a fight in the meantime where many false ideas will seem to win out and may fool many.

It only appears that personal truth is the only truth. Try that one on the woke progressive brigade. "Truth" is now what the loudest and most aggressive splinter groups can deceive people with. Such "progressive" thought is being enshrined in law in many countries. Satan is behind this, of course. His intent is to silence the Church. The saddest aspect of this is that many supposed Christians meekly submit or even embrace this folly.

In a way this is a good thing. In the book of Esther, Haman convinced Xerxes to permit the Jews to be attacked. Esther and Mordecai convinced the king to permit the Jews to defend themselves. The enemies of God's people revealed themselves and were defeated. We are seeing now who is for real and who just pays lip service to Christianity.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I think we should look at countries that use lethal injections for executions. Much more humane.
I didn't know you supported the death penalty.
Oh, I don't. I just think we should be doing it better.

Yeah, I'd be confused as well...

The problem is that companies refuse to provide what is necessary for lethal injections. I guess they have an aversion to the death penalty also, or don't want to be associated with death. Pharmaceuticals are supposed to save life, not take it. Except in euthanasia cases...... it's complicated.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, at least you're honest.

It's an argument, I'm not saying I stand by it...but if the validity of feminism is on the menu of discussion...I'll toss it out there and see if anyone can put it down.

I would have thought that a movement that could make progress on its aims, not by violence and domination but by persuasion and cooperation, might be seen as a good thing...

The movement only exists because men allow it.

Mostly because employers are wedded to very rigid (and unhealthy) employment models.

I promise you haven't seen the horrors of unhealthy employment models. They have nets to catch employees who jump off factory roofs in China.

Whatever your complaints are...they're of no real concern.

Dismantling patriarchy would benefit both men and women.

You've failed to see the point here. Dismantle what exactly? Who built that church you work at? In the words of Barack Obama "you didn't build that".

Was it men?

Citation, please. I am not aware of any such argument put forward by Butler.

There's a viral video going around that I can't post because of one little f-bomb but you can probably find it easily if you "gender theory pedophilia jeopardy". Foucault argued for a zero age of consent, the vile worthless woman who wrote gender theory 's founding document dedicated approximately 50% to the defense of pedophilia, and yes, Judith Butler 3rd wave feminist icon, man hating lesbian, and gender theorist has likewise argued for pedophilia to be legal.

So what sort of citation are you looking for? Because I can't exactly quote her here.

 

[Paidiske]

The movement only exists because men allow it.

Which perhaps raises the question as to why they allow it. Perhaps they see that it is, in fact, right and just to treat women as fully human?

You've failed to see the point here. Dismantle what exactly? Who built that church you work at? In the words of Barack Obama "you didn't build that".

Was it men?

Well, if you take Christianity seriously, God built it. That said, women have been the backbone and the muscle throughout much of the church's life, despite the blokes in pointy hats liking to take all the credit.

So what sort of citation are you looking for? Because I can't exactly quote her here.

You can give me a reference to her published work. I'll check it out. From a quick google, from what I can see, some other people are claiming that because Butler questioned the rationale for laws around incest, that she was justifying paedophilia (because so much incest is in fact child sexual abuse). But I haven't seen Butler actually make that argument.

 

[stevevw]

It only appears that personal truth is the only truth. Try that one on the woke progressive brigade. "Truth" is now what the loudest and most aggressive splinter groups can deceive people with. Such "progressive" thought is being enshrined in law in many countries. Satan is behind this, of course. His intent is to silence the Church. The saddest aspect of this is that many supposed Christians meekly submit or even embrace this folly.

In a way this is a good thing. In the book of Esther, Haman convinced Xerxes to permit the Jews to be attacked. Esther and Mordecai convinced the king to permit the Jews to defend themselves. The enemies of God's people revealed themselves and were defeated. We are seeing now who is for real and who just pays lip service to Christianity.

The truth is now about 'Identity' the Right to live as a person subjectively feels about themselves ande now trumps all else even objective reality. This has been enshrined in law even Human Rights laws when Gender identity was added to Descrimination law. Making gender identity sacred also opens the door for any subjective identity to be declared a protected species.

I think this is a very dangerous precedent because there is no way to clearly determine what is or isn't identity and therefore makes it hard to argue against. Most importantly it goes against the Wests long held Christian truths about the individual regardless of race, sex or gender being the utmost important principle of protection.

Now everyone is seen through the lens of identity and regresses society down to playing identity politics where value, morality, worth and just about everything is measure not by the unique individual traits but by the identity group you belong too. This subsumes the individual into a set of stereotypical measures or race and gender and actually magnifies differences and divisions between people.

So we are now in a game of competing groups vying for recognition and everything measured morally by how much each group is being oppressed and denied their self percieved identities. This inevitably leads to conflicts because each group will have a different identity consisting of different beliefs and expressions that are now Truth and fact in the world.

But not only conflicts between Christianity but even other identities within society including within the LGBYIQ++++ comunity where one self declared identity clashes with anothers rights..Cis women including lesbians are now in conflict with Trans ideology for example where even the existence and lived reality of biological women are a threat to Transpeople simply because they represent a fact in the world that threatens self percieved feelings that a male can become a female in reality.

The overall ideological belief that identity is everything conflicts with Christian beliefs because identity centres everything within the person as god within groups and Christianity is centred on God a transcendent truth and reality for our source of truth and morality that is beyond the self.

This aligns these ideologies with Postmoernism which rejects God, objective reality or any truths in the world and rather self referential truth and reality. It also has implcations for long held Western ideas like Enlightened thinking and scientific facts. When that happens we are on shaky ground,

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Yes of course. You expected otherwise? Some people are smarter than others. Some people are more driven than others. Some people have developed more skills than others. Some people have better attitudes than others. Some have more interest in certain fields than others.

And some people have more money to start with which opens more doors and supplies more advantages.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Which perhaps raises the question as to why they allow it. Perhaps they see that it is, in fact, right and just to treat women as fully human?

Once you admit it as the truth, the question becomes why do you deserve what you cannot take or keep for yourself? What's the qualitative difference between feminism and beggery?

Well, if you take Christianity seriously, God built it.

I'm talking about the physical building you call a church not "the church".

You can give me a reference to her published work. I'll check it out. From a quick google, from what I can see, some other people are claiming that because Butler questioned the rationale for laws around incest, that she was justifying paedophilia (because so much incest is in fact child sexual abuse). But I haven't seen Butler actually make that argument.

You know what? The fact that you're sitting there defending a person who questions the morality of incest is enough.

You can't play both sides of the fence. You aren't righteously pursuing good by seeking the betterment of women....and adhering to the works of those who defend pederasty and incest. They are vile in my eyes. Speaking, as a man, I can grant you any freedom...but the moment I'm asked to deny reality itself is the same moment I have to consider if you've gone too far afield and are in need of a fence, and less freedoms.

 

[Paidiske]

why do you deserve what you cannot take or keep for yourself?

"Might makes right"? Not a great basis for an ethical system, is it?

What's the qualitative difference between feminism and beggery?

Cooperation, I would say. Beggery is seldom a movement.

That said, I'm not conceding your point that feminism only exists because men allow it - at best I would be prepared to concede it only in part (it's certainly made more progress than we would have if all men had consistently completely opposed it) - but rather examining it.

I'm talking about the physical building you call a church not "the church".

Ah, the physical building. You know, the ladies raised and donated most of the money. From Margaret (who proudly regales me with the story of raising the first $50 for the building, back when $50 was a lot more money), to Mary who just gave us quarter of a million to extend the building. I've no doubt - because it's old enough that there would have been even fewer women on building sites then than there are now - that men did most of the physical labour, but that's not because women couldn't have.

You know what? The fact that you're sitting there defending a person who questions the morality of incest is enough.

Actually, as I understand it, she was questioning the laws around incest (laws not being quite the same thing as morality). That said, I'd prefer to criticise people for things they actually said, rather than things other people say that they said. If she defended paedophilia, I'll criticise that with vigour; but I can't actually find that she did.

Speaking, as a man, I can grant you any freedom...but the moment I'm asked to deny reality itself is the same moment I have to consider if you've gone too far afield and are in need of a fence, and less freedoms.

What a good thing, then, that we're not in any respective positions to allow you to make any such a decision.

 

[Bradskii]

Let's look at this shall we?

Me- I don't think kids should be medically transitioned. Period.

...but we should be using countries like Sweden as examples of how to do it.

 

[Bradskii]

The problem is that companies refuse to provide what is necessary for lethal injections. I guess they have an aversion to the death penalty also, or don't want to be associated with death. Pharmaceuticals are supposed to save life, not take it. Except in euthanasia cases...... it's complicated.

What..? It was an analogy.

 

[Ana the Ist]

"Might makes right"? Not a great basis for an ethical system, is it?

Argue all you like for whatever ethical system you wish....but you will need men to enforce it. Otherwise it's mere words.

Cooperation, I would say. Beggery is seldom a movement.

I'm not feeling a lot of cooperation from a movement that blames me for its troubles.

That said, I'm not conceding your point that feminism only exists because men allow it - at best I would be prepared to concede it only in part (it's certainly made more progress than we would have if all men had consistently completely opposed it) - but rather examining it.

Turn it around as many times as you want. Examine it at every angle.

Ah, the physical building. You know, the ladies raised and donated most of the money. From Margaret (who proudly regales me with the story of raising the first $50 for the building, back when $50 was a lot more money), to Mary who just gave us quarter of a million to extend the building. I've no doubt - because it's old enough that there would have been even fewer women on building sites then than there are now - that men did most of the physical labour, but that's not because women couldn't have.

Then why didn't they?

Actually, as I understand it, she was questioning the laws around incest (laws not being quite the same thing as morality). That said, I'd prefer to criticise people for things they actually said, rather than things other people say that they said. If she defended paedophilia, I'll criticise that with vigour; but I can't actually find that she did.

Her argument was a moral one so it doesn't matter if she questioned laws. She's got the intellectual depth of a puddle and the moral spine of a jellyfish.

What a good thing, then, that we're not in any respective positions to allow you to make any such a decision.

Pray it always remains so.

 

[Bradskii]

What a good thing, then, that we're not in any respective positions to allow you to make any such a decision.

Amen to that.

 

[Kylie]

"My confutation is basically this: That it can be proven that truths ‘exist’ does not necessarily, by itself, either constitute a method for specifically learning those truths, or supplying the grounds for deducing those truths so that they can be known. Hence, this argument only creates the mirage that there are real answers, but there won’t really be any actual answers. Perhaps there can be scientifically objective knowledge about morality, in the abstract. I strongly doubt that this reliance on this applied science, or any amount of science and applied science, can concretely yield what we would all regard as objectively discernible knowledge about specific moral duties (or virtues, etc.) That is to say, moral truths there may be, but moral knowledge there may never be, if we rely only upon the sciences (broadly understood) alone.

Your point?

I did not make any claims as to whether morality is objective or not (though I have stated my opinion on that issue in the past). I simply stated that Christianity did not invent morality, nor did any other religion.

So your response here is a non sequitur.

 

[Kylie]

Florida doesn't have anti-trans laws. Last I knew if you were an adult you could transition in Florida. Maybe I'm wrong.

I think what Florida did was step in and tell the schools they could no longer educate children in the agenda. They also joined other countries who have recognized they were doing wrong to kids and have tightened up their standards, left WPATH and moved transitioning kids to a tightly controlled research method. No more higgledy piggelgy approach that America has been doing.

The government of Florida does indeed seem to be very anti-trans. DeSantis signs flurry of anti-trans bills, including ban on gender-affirming care for minors

And what is this trans agenda you speak of? Sounds like just an attempt to not provide any of the health care trans people need and justify it by saying, "Oh, we just need to tighten up our standards so we can provide better healthcare to trans people." I'm not fooled by that for a second.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Your point?

I did not make any claims as to whether morality is objective or not (though I have stated my opinion on that issue in the past). I simply stated that Christianity did not invent morality, nor did any other religion.

So your response here is a non sequitur.

Saying that "morality was around before religion" doesn't actually say very much. What kind of "morality" was around before religion? I'm going to need more than the Shook article you used as a form of support to more fully get the gist of what you're attempting to communicate.

 

[Bradskii]

Saying that "morality was around before religion" doesn't actually say very much. What kind of "morality" was around before religion? I'm going to need more than the Shook article you used as a form of support to more fully get the gist of what you're attempting to communicate.

It's an evolved characteristic of mankind, plus a natural tendency to avoid bad things being done to you.

I'll give one example of the first from our evolutionary past. It's generally considered that incest is wrong (let's not get into an argument as to the validity of that statement). Those that might have indulged back in the deep past will have had offspring that were not as 'fit', in an evolutionary sense, as those that didn't. So those that tended to have sex with close relatives died out. leaving those that, due to a throw of the evolutionary dice, thought it might not be a good idea. Nobody did studies in Palaeolithic times to check. It was just evolution doing what evolution does best.

Now, had it been a quirk of our biology that having sex with close relatives was evolutionary beneficial, then the result of that would be that those who had sex outside of the immediate family would have died out. And that having sex with a stranger would now be seen as morally wrong as compared to having sex with one's siblings.

In the second case, it's pretty simple. If I steal your stuff, then you're going to steal mine. If I share my stuff, then there's a chance you'll share yours. Simply extrapolate from that and not stealing and sharing what you have become 'good'. So we call it moral.

Actually, the sharing can be used in the first sense as well. People who have a tendency to share form groups. And finding food, making tools, building a shelter, is easier if there's a few of you than if you're an individual. If you're part of a group, then one person can look for food while another is making weapons to hunt for that food while you are building a shelter and someone else is lighting a fire. The guy who thinks sharing is for losers has to do it all himself. He doesn't make it and therefore has no descendants. But the descendants of the group all have a 'sharing gene' and it becomes predominant.

Now that's a complex matter that might take a book or two to deal with in detail but it's only a couple of paragraphs. So bear that in mind.

 

[Paidiske]

I'm not feeling a lot of cooperation from a movement that blames me for its troubles.

Don't make the mistake of identifying with the system which you happen to inhabit.

Then why didn't they?

Maybe because in the 1970s there wasn't a lot of scope for women to be accepted in those kinds of fields? I mean, this is a much more recent document, and it highlights that there are still significant barriers.