When two worldviews collide.

[rjs330]

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

Yes of course you expect otherwise? Some people live in the US, some live in Mexico. Some people live in the UK some live in Ethiopia. Some people are tall, some are short, some are good looking others are not. There are advantages all over the place. I guess we should just stomp our feet and say life isn't fair.

Or, here's an idea, if you live in America you can be thankful that you can overcome those disadvantages and have a good successful life.

 

[rjs330]

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

Lol. That's all you read? Well then I certainly can see why you're confused.

 

[rjs330]

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.

Let's see if that argument holds any water under other circumstances.

Actually she was questioning anti-slavery laws. But if she defended slavery I'd criticize her position.

Actually she was questioning laws against domestic violence. But if she defended domestic violence then I'd criticize her position.

Actually she was questioning laws against rape. But then if she defended rape thin I'd criticize her.

 

[rjs330]

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.

Oh darn. I'm sure they thought they could fool you. Cause all those Bills forbade trans adults from doing anything at all. Reading the article again...... Oh wait. I was right after all. They aren't doing that. They are keeping the kids safe.

 

[Paidiske]

Let's see if that argument holds any water under other circumstances....

There are other areas where how laws might best be used to minimise harm is a real discussion. For example, around drug use, or around prostitution. I can, for example, hold to wanting a set of laws which minimises the harm caused by recreational drug use, without ever thinking such drug use is good, or even moral. I can want a set of laws which minimises the harm caused by the sex industry, without ever thinking prostitution is moral.

Now, I haven't actually read Butler's arguments around the laws to do with incest, but I can imagine a situation in which someone asks, "Are the laws we have now the best possible set of laws imaginable?" and comes up with the answer, "No," without ever intending to condone paeodophilia, even if others later read that into the argument.

 

[Bradskii]

Let's see if that argument holds any water under other circumstances.

Actually she was questioning anti-slavery laws. But if she defended slavery I'd criticize her position.

Actually she was questioning laws against domestic violence. But if she defended domestic violence then I'd criticize her position.

Actually she was questioning laws against rape. But then if she defended rape thin I'd criticize her.

There are many countries where she might not need to question laws against incest because it is allowed. At least between consenting adults*. But none of the countries, and I'll repeat none of the countries legalise paedophilia. They are two separate considerations.

Weirdly, Ireland and Germany have laws against it, but only in respect to opposite sex individuals. So same sex incest is not illegal. Go figure.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

I watched a video the other day of a Ukrainian in a trench. He pauses at the start of the video as a shell is incoming....because there's no point in beginning if he's about to die. Then he begins talking about killing Russians and overrunning the trench...the odd sensation of taking turns sleeping on the corpses of your enemies. You can tell he doesn't have any words for it...but shrugs and says he has more work to do.

You know what isn't in the video? Women. They've fled. That's your movement. It's the total silence of feminists as women flee a war zone and men fleeing are turned around to kill or die. When the rubber meets the road...your movement disappears entirely.

So do tell me again how we're equals. Even better...tell me of the time when women stormed a trench full of enemies and slept upon their corpses.

Your movement is entirely selfish, and I'm unsympathetic.

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.

I'm not sure if you really believe that or it's just the rationalization you cling to as an explanation for weakness.

 

[Paidiske]

That's your movement. It's the total silence of feminists as women flee a war zone and men fleeing are turned around to kill or die. When the rubber meets the road...your movement disappears entirely.

While I might disagree with you that participation in war is the measure of anything good, the idea that the women have fled and left the men to die might be a wee bit... well, overstated. Eg. see here:

Women on the frontline: how many Ukrainian women are taking part in the war and what you need to know about their exploits

Since the beginning of the full-scale war, thousands of volunteers have expressed their desire to fight for their homeland. But it's not just men, it's also Ukrainian women who continue to bravely fight for freedom. Find out how many women are fighting in the Ukrainian Armed Forces and what...

visitukraine.today

If you want to valorise warfare, go ahead; but I'm just as much a pacifist as I am a feminist, and I'm pretty unimpressed with the idea that violence and dominance is the measure of anything worth aspiring to.

 

[Ana the Ist]

While I might disagree with you that participation in war is the measure of anything good,

Who said it was good. You claimed your movement righteous by the suffering it alleviates, no? But you don't care who suffers most....only who complains loudest.

the idea that the women have fled and left the men to die might be a wee bit... well, overstated. Eg. see here:

Women on the frontline: how many Ukrainian women are taking part in the war and what you need to know about their exploits

Since the beginning of the full-scale war, thousands of volunteers have expressed their desire to fight for their homeland. But it's not just men, it's also Ukrainian women who continue to bravely fight for freedom. Find out how many women are fighting in the Ukrainian Armed Forces and what...

visitukraine.today

Oh? Wow. 100 dead. I'm shocked at the loss.

Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Let's just go with the US estimate here....

20,000 killed, 130,000 wounded

So mathematically, the ladies have contributed about 1/200th of what the men have. What exactly did I overstate? I'll concede that a desperate fight will even include children at times but please don't continue pretending about who is fighting this war.

If you want to valorise warfare,

Did that sound like a story of valor?

It's a story of suffering. Of men hollowed out and scarred for life. It's a story of burden....the sort you and every other woman who has ever had the luxury of living under a patriarchy are unlikely to ever have to bear....because they're women.

The idea that you deserve a seat at the boardroom without ever having laid the foundation of the building is feminism. The idea that you deserve a say in the affairs of state but aren't expected to sacrifice your life for it is feminism.

go ahead; but I'm just as much a pacifist as I am a feminist, and I'm pretty unimpressed with the idea that violence and dominance is the measure of anything worth aspiring to.

It's not an aspiration. It's a reality of life. You dream of a mankind that doesn't exist and a woman's place of equality that's just a sad joke.

 

[Paidiske]

But you don't care who suffers most....only who complains loudest.

I'm quite happy to argue against the mass death of blokes in warfare. War is, as I think I said elsewhere in the thread, perhaps humanity's most egregious evil.

So I can be a feminist (against the subjugation of women) and a pacifist (against the hideous evil of war) at the same time. Sexism, misogyny, and mass killing are all wrong.

Did that sound like a story of valor?


It's a story of suffering.

As war is so terrible, why would you argue that women should be caught up in it, rather than that it should be ended for all?

The idea that you deserve a seat at the boardroom without ever having laid the foundation of the building is feminism. The idea that you deserve a say in the affairs of state but aren't expected to sacrifice your life for it is feminism.

As if most of the blokes who sit in boardrooms laboured at the foundations of anything.

I'd argue that women should be able to participate at all levels (from the foundations to the boardroom), when all too often they've been denied the opportunity to participate at any level; and that no one should be expected to sacrifice their life for the state.

You dream of a mankind that doesn't exist and a woman's place of equality that's just a sad joke.

And I believe in the transformative power of the reign of God. Therefore I have hope.

 

[Robban]

I'm quite happy to argue against the mass death of blokes in warfare. War is, as I think I said elsewhere in the thread, perhaps humanity's most egregious evil.

So I can be a feminist (against the subjugation of women) and a pacifist (against the hideous evil of war) at the same time. Sexism, misogyny, and mass killing are all wrong.

As war is so terrible, why would you argue that women should be caught up in it, rather than that it should be ended for all?

As if most of the blokes who sit in boardrooms laboured at the foundations of anything.

I'd argue that women should be able to participate at all levels (from the foundations to the boardroom), when all too often they've been denied the opportunity to participate at any level; and that no one should be expected to sacrifice their life for the state.

And I believe in the transformative power of the reign of God. Therefore I have hope.

Women are just as valueable as men, we all have a mother.

I go with rhe Rebbes advice to a young mother who wanted to get a job as a typist,
in an attempt to make ends meet.





He told her if she needed to seek work so the families economy would be eased

by all means, do it, "But do not call yourself a typist, you are first and foremost, a mother."

 

[Ophiolite]

I have seen this argument before, but I do not agree. Power, at its most basic level, is the ability to do something or undertake some action. The power to compel another is only one type of power, but one which comes with significant ethical limitations.

If this interjection between yourself and Ignatius the Kiwi is disruptive please ignore it.

When you speak of other forms of power I imagine your are speaking of, for example, the power of information, or the power of persuasion. There are likely others, but these are the two that occur to me just now.
Would you agree that each of these also comes with ethical limitations? Thus, I know from experience in business I can often persuade those over whom I have no authority, and in some cases those who have athority over me, to follow a particular course of action. Superficially this may seem to be the use of negotiation and rational argument to achieve a cooperative end, but at one extreme it can all to easily involve obfuscation and manipulation. Thus ethical persuasion requires candour and full disclosure of the impact of any quid pro quo.
In a similar way cherry picking data to support ones case, or failing to disclose source and reliability would be, in my view, unethical.

In respect of the OP I think both left and right, atheist and religious, have adherents who use power, of all kinds, unethically. Well that's humans for you: Love 'em or hate 'em. You gotta live with 'em.

 

[Paidiske]

When you speak of other forms of power I imagine your are speaking of, for example, the power of information, or the power of persuasion. There are likely others, but these are the two that occur to me just now.
Would you agree that each of these also comes with ethical limitations?

I was thinking in even more basic terms, like the power to do something, move something, go somewhere... although you are certainly correct both that there are other forms of power in human relationships, and that these also come with ethical limitations.

Thus, I know from experience in business I can often persuade those over whom I have no authority, and in some cases those who have athority over me, to follow a particular course of action. Superficially this may seem to be the use of negotiation and rational argument to achieve a cooperative end, but at one extreme it can all to easily involve obfuscation and manipulation.

I agree that dishonesty and manipulation are unethical.

In respect of the OP I think both left and right, atheist and religious, have adherents who use power, of all kinds, unethically.

Completely agree.

 

[BPPLEE]

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.

Using your model what happened to those who had sex with the same sex?

 

[rjs330]

There are other areas where how laws might best be used to minimise harm is a real discussion. For example, around drug use, or around prostitution. I can, for example, hold to wanting a set of laws which minimises the harm caused by recreational drug use, without ever thinking such drug use is good, or even moral. I can want a set of laws which minimises the harm caused by the sex industry, without ever thinking prostitution is moral.

Now, I haven't actually read Butler's arguments around the laws to do with incest, but I can imagine a situation in which someone asks, "Are the laws we have now the best possible set of laws imaginable?" and comes up with the answer, "No," without ever intending to condone paeodophilia, even if others later read that into the argument.

Well then it looks like you have some reading to do. Before you quote someone or use them as a reference you should read what they actually have to say and believe. I'm sure you could find some quotes from Hitler or Mao it Stalin that sound good too. But I sure wouldn't use them as a reference.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm quite happy to argue against the mass death of blokes in warfare. War is, as I think I said elsewhere in the thread, perhaps humanity's most egregious evil.

Uh huh.

So I can be a feminist (against the subjugation of women)

Protection. Not subjugated...protected. Sheltered. Cared for. Privileged.

and a pacifist (against the hideous evil of war) at the same time. Sexism, misogyny, and mass killing are all wrong.

Oh and a hypocrite. You don't need to tell me you're a pacifist....I already knew that. Unless you've solved the problem of war all you're telling me is you've opted out...part of that privilege of being a woman.

As war is so terrible, why would you argue that women should be caught up in it, rather than that it should be ended for all?

1. Equality. Don't bother wasting your breathe talking about how we're equals if you cannot do a man's work. Just like how women didn't build that church if yours.

2. Never heard an argument that solves the problem of war. Never heard an argument that solves the problem of murder. Never heard an argument that solves the problem of poverty....etc.

However, here's a fun thing to consider...

If your god had made you the larger and stronger of the species, all those problems you fret over wouldn't be problems would they? The domestic spousal abuse, the rape, the murder, etc. It's as if your god doesn't agree with feminism at all.

As if most of the blokes who sit in boardrooms laboured at the foundations of anything.

Perhaps, perhaps not. You go back far enough in any company and you'll find a man who started with little to nothing.

I'd argue that women should be able to participate at all levels (from the foundations to the boardroom)

They don't actually though....they want the power without the work, the sacrifice, the effort. They want to complain their way to the top.

And I believe in the transformative power of the reign of God. Therefore I have hope.

Can't win a war on hope.

But you don't care who suffers most....only who complains loudest.

 

[Ophiolite]

@Ana the Ist, you make several assertions. It's an easy process. Here is one of them:

They don't actually though....they want the power without the work, the sacrifice, the effort. They want to complain their way to the top.

Please substantiate this particular assertion with solid, validated research, conducted by relevant experts and published in peer reviewed journals, otherwise your assertions may be safely dismissed.

 

[Paidiske]

Protection. Not subjugated...protected. Sheltered. Cared for. Privileged.

There's no protection, shelter or care in being uneducated, unemployed, and denied agency and participation in social structures. For a few it may be a gilded cage, but it's a cage nonetheless.

 

[Ana the Ist]

@Ana the Ist, you make several assertions. It's an easy process. Here is one of them:


Please substantiate this particular assertion with solid, validated research, conducted by relevant experts and published in peer reviewed journals, otherwise your assertions may be safely dismissed.

That's just an extension of the previous point made about feminism's gains being granted by men. Go back a few posts to follow the progression. I'm not repeating the whole argument for you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There's no protection, shelter or care in being uneducated *snip*

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://melbourne-cshe.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/4450984/Larkins-2018-Male-Students-Remain-Underrepresented-in-Australian-Universities.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjS_M-crpSAAxWwO0QIHdaZAUEQFnoECAgQBg&usg=AOvVaw3XwekgUcLEXhv7-nCN2e_k

Looks like men are less educated than women in Australia.

You don't care for who suffers most, only who complains loudest.