Page 89 of 159 FirstFirst ... 3979878889909199139 ... LastLast
Results 881 to 890 of 1582

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
    15,259
    Amen (Given)
    7811
    Amen (Received)
    8029
    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
    12,127
    Amen (Given)
    25
    Amen (Received)
    1073
    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

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  3. #883
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,917
    Amen (Given)
    5519
    Amen (Received)
    5478
    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
    12,127
    Amen (Given)
    25
    Amen (Received)
    1073
    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; 03-18-2019 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

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  5. #885
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,091
    Amen (Given)
    2453
    Amen (Received)
    1761
    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.

  6. #886
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    23,825
    Amen (Given)
    1580
    Amen (Received)
    4738
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    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?
    Again, where do you get this idea of equal rights? Can you point to them in nature? And again, speaking of a growing and developing society you are assuming some kind of objective standard that we are moving toward, and some lesser standard that we are moving away from.


    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.
    The point is that all this was done and we maintained social cohesion in a patriarchal society. So your whole point about social cohesion is moot...


    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.
    I'm not speaking of women in the workforce per se, but the ideology. Directly leading to 40% of children not growing up in a home with a father and that is 70% in the inner city. As they they said: "Women need men like a fish needs a bicycle." Even from an evolutionary point of view the killing millions of our own offspring can't be a good survival strategy.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  7. #887
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    51,757
    Amen (Given)
    11193
    Amen (Received)
    23954
    Any further beating of this horse is NOT going to cause it to resurrect and go galloping off on its merry way.
    I have called you my friends.... Jesus
    Jn 15:15

  8. #888
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,917
    Amen (Given)
    5519
    Amen (Received)
    5478
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    I don't have a problem with an internally driven "ought" or an "ought" driven by the realities of society...
    What is an "internally driven 'ought'"? That basically makes you your own moral authority which leads to an "anything goes" ethic.

    As for an "'ought' driven by the realities of society," the next obvious question is "Why ought I conform with society?" and then "Why ought I conform with that?" and on and on it goes.
    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

  9. #889
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,127
    Amen (Given)
    25
    Amen (Received)
    1073
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    What is an "internally driven 'ought'"?
    It is that sense of "needing to do X rather than Y." It is usually driven by simple logic. It can range from the innocuous (if I want to avoid getting a cold, I ought to avoid shaking hands with that obviously sick person) to the more critical (if I want people to respect my personal property, I ought not randomly take theirs). It is also partially fueled by our position within society or any other group to which we subscribe. And it is partially fueled by our nature (living, sentient, social, etc.). In some cases, it is driven by external powers (i.e., if I want to avoid a speeding ticket, I ought not speed).

    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    That basically makes you your own moral authority which leads to an "anything goes" ethic.
    Not really. We all have been influenced by our upbringing and experiences, and we are all humans living on this constrained world, so our moral frameworks show significant cohesion. Yes, there is also variation. But they don't show any more variation than the people who claim to cling to an absolute/objective standard, AFAICT. I realize you blame that on "sinfulness." But the fact is that two groups both claiming to adhere to the same "absolute/objective" moral standard can and do arrive at opposite positions.

    The "willy nilly anything goes" language is, frankly, the language of the so-called "moral realist" who has arbitrarily locked their moral framework to one or another subjective/relative framework and arbitrarily declared it "absolute and objective" and wants to raise fears about the "dangers" of moral relativism/subjectivism. It's ironic, since those same people actually ARE moral relativists/subjectivists.

    The fact is, moral frameworks ARE relative/subjective - even for the so-called moral realist. You cannot escape that reality, whatever you may call it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    As for an "'ought' driven by the realities of society," the next obvious question is "Why ought I conform with society?"
    In general, to maximize the quality of the things you value, assuming you value similarly to the rest of us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    and then "Why ought I conform with that?" and on and on it goes.
    I'm not sure there is a "next," but feel free to offer it. Meanwhile, your own framework has the same problem, MM. You're not making an argument that is unique to anyone. Any difficulty I might have articulating an "ought" you will have as well. Try it. What is the source of "ought" in your worldview?
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-19-2019 at 11:08 AM.
    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

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  10. #890
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,091
    Amen (Given)
    2453
    Amen (Received)
    1761
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Again, where do you get this idea of equal rights? Can you point to them in nature?
    We get this “idea” from the same place as we get other “ideas”, such as scientific achievement which you rightly claim differentiates us from the Chimpanzees. In short, our advanced intelligence.

    And again, speaking of a growing and developing society you are assuming some kind of objective standard that we are moving toward, and some lesser standard that we are moving away from.
    Yes, we are (hopefully) moving towards greater social cohesion and away from women being treated as less-than men.

    The point is that all this was done and we maintained social cohesion in a patriarchal society. So your whole point about social cohesion is moot...
    The enforced social cohesion within a Patriarchal society, as in a dictatorship, engenders resentment and social unrest…not the best basis for social order.

    I'm not speaking of women in the workforce per se, but the ideology. Directly leading to 40% of children not growing up in a home with a father and that is 70% in the inner city. As they they said: "Women need men like a fish needs a bicycle."
    These statistics are not related to granting equal rights to women. Women have full equal rights in many countries without the social problems to which you refer.

    Even from an evolutionary point of view the killing millions of our own offspring can't be a good survival strategy.
    Abortion is a separate topic.
    “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
  •