Page 89 of 89 FirstFirst ... 3979878889
Results 881 to 885 of 885

Thread: So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

  1. #881
    God, family, chicken! Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,779
    Amen (Given)
    7559
    Amen (Received)
    7776
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Well - I think I'll pass on the "righteous."

    Laying claim to that would make me "self-righteous" - I think.... :hmm:


    ...isn't there an emoji with someone rubbing their chin thinking/considering...?


    There should be
    : demure:


    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals --- Manya the Holy Szin --- The Quintara Marathon ---

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common --- Stephen R. Donaldson ---

  2. #882
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,581
    Amen (Given)
    24
    Amen (Received)
    995
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    : demure:
    Oh I don't think I could EVER bring myself to use THAT emoji....
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

    -Martin Luther King

  3. #883
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,139
    Amen (Given)
    5327
    Amen (Received)
    4983
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Umm...I don't think you have a clue about pretty much anything I've been saying about morality. If you did - then you would know this statement is devoid of content and/or a complete mismatch to what I've been saying.
    Oh, right, it's you. When you get nailed to the wall, you squirm away and insist that you've been misunderstood.

    When I pointed out that you were committing the is-ought fallacy, you objected saying, "I have made no assertion that things SHOULD be way X, only that they ARE way X." When I pointed out the necessary implications of this assertion, that "If what you say is true, then there [is] nothing virtuous or praiseworthy about treating others one way as opposed to another. It's like applauding someone for obeying the laws of physics," you claimed the above, that it was a complete mismatch of what you've been saying.

    Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Either you believe there is an ought, and then you're stuck with the thorny issue of trying to account for it in the absence of an ultimate moral lawgiver (good luck), or you believe there is no ought, and morality becomes meaningless. Which is it?
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  4. #884
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,581
    Amen (Given)
    24
    Amen (Received)
    995
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    When I pointed out that you were committing the is-ought fallacy, you objected saying, "I have made no assertion that things SHOULD be way X, only that they ARE way X." When I pointed out the necessary implications of this assertion, that "If what you say is true, then there [is] nothing virtuous or praiseworthy about treating others one way as opposed to another. It's like applauding someone for obeying the laws of physics," you claimed the above, that it was a complete mismatch of what you've been saying.
    Yeah - basically. You're not making a lot of sense. Nothing in my response to Charles suggested anything "should" be any given way. He complimented me (as far as I can tell) on my posting style and way of treating others. I presume he was referring to the norms most of us aspire to when engaging with others and thanked him. I have no idea how you got to "should" out of any of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Either you believe there is an ought, and then you're stuck with the thorny issue of trying to account for it in the absence of an ultimate moral lawgiver (good luck), or you believe there is no ought, and morality becomes meaningless. Which is it?
    I don't have a problem with an internally driven "ought" or an "ought" driven by the realities of society, and frankly don't see how that is even marginally related to Charles compliment. I don't need a "law giver" because I don't subscribe the the authoritarian model of morality. So you frame a false dichotomy and expect me to just pony up and say, "oh my, you are SO right!?" Sorry. Not likely to happen.
    Last edited by carpedm9587; Today at 04:32 PM.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

    -Martin Luther King

  5. #885
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,475
    Amen (Given)
    2391
    Amen (Received)
    1689
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    I have no idea where you are getting this idea of equal rights. From our monkey ancestors?
    I take it you would prefer to remain in a patriarchal society such as found among our “monkey ancestors” rather than participating in a growing and developing society?

    The fact is the West thrived and created the greatest civilization in world history with the greatest scientific advancement while being largely male dominated. Remember your argument was about social cohesion - and we had that.
    It is the higher intelligence of the human “monkey” which brought about scientific advancement, not the patriarchal society in and of itself, i.e. the very same “scientific advancement” that many Evangelicals deny regarding Evolution and Climate Change.

    And it could be argued that the feminist movement undermined social cohesion,
    OTOH it could be better argued that the “feminist movement” has greatly enhanced social cohesion by promoting equality within society and utilizing the undoubted capabilities of men and women to the benefit of all.

    and the single most important institution in society, the two parent family with biological children.
    All children that I know were the biological product of two parents.

    The most important role of families is to provide a loving, secure environment so as to promote the rounded development of the children in its care.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •