Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Any further beating of this horse is NOT going to cause it to resurrect and go galloping off on its merry way.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • 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

        Comment


        • 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).

          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.

          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.

          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, 01:08 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

          Comment


          • 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.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              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.
              Except, unlike with empirical scientific discoveries, you are speaking of subjective ideals, apples and oranges.


              Yes, we are (hopefully) moving towards greater social cohesion and away from women being treated as less-than men.
              You have no idea what we are moving towards, it may in fact undermine cohesion.

              The enforced social cohesion within a Patriarchal society, as in a dictatorship, engenders resentment and social unrest…not the best basis for social order.
              Oh please, we have the evidence of Western Civilization. The greatest Civilization in human history, which was Patriarchal.


              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.
              Really? What countries have the two parent, with biological children family, done well.


              Abortion is a separate topic.
              No it is not, it is a direct effect of feminism. And how is killing our own offspring good for a society? And abortion rights have split this country right down the middle, until this day - undermining social cohesion.
              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...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                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).




                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.
                "If I don't want people to steal my property, then I ought to kill them before they can take it" is also a perfectly logical statement. So is "If I want to maximize my resources, I ought to steal from others." Or even "If I want to purify the human race, then I ought to eliminate all beings who carry impure genes."

                Like I said, pragmatism is a poor moral guide even with your attempts to place artificial borders around it. You suggest their exists a common moral framework based on "our upbringing and experiences", but that just kicks the can down the road with the begged question "I ought to act consistently with my upbringing and experiences." The next obvious question is "Why?" and you can keep asking why until you give up in frustration, because there is no point in your moral theory where you can say, "The buck stops here." It's also culturally ignorant to assume that all people will agree on these matters. For example, your ethical framework will differ significantly from that of a devout Muslim who thinks it moral to subjugate women and kill infidels. So which of you is right?

                Furthermore, you again run afoul of the is-ought fallacy, implying that because something is desirable that we have a moral obligation to do it, but this is obviously false on the face of it. "I think chocolate ice cream is delicious; therefore, I ought/am morally obligated to go to the store and buy some"? Of course not. You're confusing the concept of what is desirable with what is moral.

                One final note: your description of moral realism is little more than a strawman. It's an ethic that is not arbitrary, like you claim, but attempts to derive morality from an accurate description of objective reality (which, ironically, is exactly what you're attempting to do, so you argue against yourself in your attempts to dismiss moral realism). I, however, am not a moral realist since it tries to explain the existence of moral obligation without God, so I have no use for it in my worldview.

                I'm not attempting to scare anybody. I'm simply explaining the logical implications of your beliefs. Whether or not this scares you is beside the point.

                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                Any difficulty I might have articulating an "ought" you will have as well. Try it. What is the source of "ought" in your worldview?
                That is actually a very easy question for the theist to answer: I ought to be moral because it has been commanded by God who is the ultimate moral authority.

                Without an ultimate authority then morality is like a speed limit sign in an abandoned town: it's meaningless.
                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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  "If I don't want people to steal my property, then I ought to kill them before they can take it" is also a perfectly logical statement.
                  Could be. Depends on whether the individual values property over life or life over property.

                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  So is "If I want to maximize my resources, I ought to steal from others."
                  Again - if one lacks power, the social contract suggest this is not a very wise or rational "ought." Of course if one HAS power and knows and lack of alignment can be overcome with power - they might come to exactly this conclusion.

                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  Or even "If I want to purify the human race, then I ought to eliminate all beings who carry impure genes."
                  Again, whether or not one arrives at any of these positions depends on what they value and don't value.

                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  Like I said, pragmatism is a poor moral guide even with your attempts to place artificial borders around it. You suggest their exists a common moral framework based on "our upbringing and experiences",
                  No - I suggested that much of the commonality of our individual moral frameworks traces back to our common experience as humans on this planet in social groups.

                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  but that just kicks the can down the road with the begged question "I ought to act consistently with my upbringing and experiences."
                  No one made any such statement. Our sense of "ought" is influenced by these sources. At no point did I say there was an "ought" about it. It simply is what it is.

                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  The next obvious question is "Why?"
                  Since I never said the previous, I don't have any urgent need to try to answer this.

                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  and you can keep asking why until you give up in frustration, because there is no point in your moral theory where you can say, "The buck stops here."
                  Why is that necessary? Any statement has a potential "but why" and they all trace to infinity. Ask any 2 year old. You are in no different a position.

                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  It's also culturally ignorant to assume that all people will agree on these matters.
                  I didn't say this either - so I feel no urgency to defend it.

                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  For example, your ethical framework will differ significantly from that of a devout Muslim who thinks it moral to subjugate women and kill infidels. So which of you is right?
                  Neither of us is absolutely/objectively right. Morality is relative/subjective - it cannot make absolute/objective conclusions. But we already know that and I agree with this statement. So what?

                  If history repeats itself, your answer will be some variation of "but moral relativism/subjectivism cannot make absolute/objective statements." I will again agree, and ask "so what?" and you will then repeat some form of "but moral relativism/subjectivism cannot make absolute/objective statements." and it will continue ad infinitum without you ever realizing that you are not making an argument - you are merely repeating the definition of the terms.

                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  Furthermore, you again run afoul of the is-ought fallacy, implying that because something is desirable that we have a moral obligation to do it, but this is obviously false on the face of it. "I think chocolate ice cream is delicious; therefore, I ought/am morally obligated to go to the store and buy some"? Of course not. You're confusing the concept of what is desirable with what is moral.
                  When did I say that morality is driven by "desirability?"

                  All human preferences are not equal. We don't tend to use the word "moral" for our trivial preferences, but for the ones that are most deeply and profoundly held. Food is seldom on that list, unless it rises to a level of survival - and then it tends to be about life - not the specific food.

                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  One final note: your description of moral realism is little more than a strawman. It's an ethic that is not arbitrary, like you claim, but attempts to derive morality from an accurate description of objective reality (which, ironically, is exactly what you're attempting to do, so you argue against yourself in your attempts to dismiss moral realism). I, however, am not a moral realist since it tries to explain the existence of moral obligation without God, so I have no use for it in my worldview.
                  Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism) is the meta-ethical view (see the section on Ethics) that there exist such things as moral facts and moral values, and that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them.


                  This is the definition I use. God is not excluded from, or included in, the definition. It is also simply a non-starter. With or without a god, morality remains stubbornly subjective/relative to the sentience that conceives of the framework. The only sense in which it is objective is in so far as one beings moral framework is an objective reality to another's.

                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  I'm not attempting to scare anybody. I'm simply explaining the logical implications of your beliefs. Whether or not this scares you is beside the point.
                  The implications for my beliefs are a) I am acknowledging what is patently obvious in the moral sphere, and how morality has always functioned, and b) dismissing a claim about morality that has no foundation in fact and is nothing more than one group's attempt to claim a superior level of authority for the moral framework they have collectively agreed to. Beyond that, there are no other implications. Morality keeps functioning as it always has: relatively and subjectively - all claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  That is actually a very easy question for the theist to answer: I ought to be moral because it has been commanded by God who is the ultimate moral authority.
                  So why "ought" you to do what god commands? (not to mention you cannot even show this god exists, or clearly and unambiguously articular their moral framework)

                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  Without an ultimate authority then morality is like a speed limit sign in an abandoned town: it's meaningless.
                  For those who subscribe to an "authoritarian" view of morality, this appears to bee a true statement. Such people do what is right because the authority "says so." Some of us look at the issues, and reason to a moral position that is consistent with what we value - and then live according to that moral for no other reason than we perceive it to be right. When we wish to see enforcement of a particular moral norm - we encode it in laws and delegate members of our society to "police" it. Otherwise, we police it ourselves individually.
                  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

                  Comment


                  • And now you resort to the classic "address Individual sentences out of context to give the appearance of addressing the entire argument without actually addressing it". At the moment, I don't have the time or patience to dig through the weeds to figure out your disjointed train of thought, so I'll let my argument stand.

                    However, I will directly answer one question: "So why 'ought' you to do what god commands?" Answer: because he is the ultimate moral authority. You describe this as authoritarian, and I suppose it is, but without a moral authority, there is no moral ought, and it's all a matter of preference and pragmatism. But even atheist instinctively know that moral obligation exists, but this is at odds with their worldview, and so they're stuck with a dilemma.
                    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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      And now you resort to the classic "address Individual sentences out of context to give the appearance of addressing the entire argument without actually addressing it". At the moment, I don't have the time or patience to dig through the weeds to figure out your disjointed train of thought, so I'll let my argument stand.
                      Or fall

                      Sorry, MM - but you are doing the same thing Seer and Sparko are doing in another thread. You don't HAVE an argument, and apparently cannot see it.

                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      However, I will directly answer one question: "So why 'ought' you to do what god commands?" Answer: because he is the ultimate moral authority.
                      So a) how do you know this god exists. b) how do you know he is the the ultimate moral authority, c) and what exactly creates the "ought" that you "ought to follow the ultimate moral authority?" I suspect your answer will be, because he's the ultimate moral authority - that's what the words mean - which means you've basically defined your way to a conclusion.

                      1) What is the ultimate moral authority?
                      2) The authority who's moral prescriptions I ought follow.
                      3) Why ought you follow this ultimate moral authority?
                      4) Because they are the ultimate moral authority.
                      5) Return to 1)

                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      You describe this as authoritarian, and I suppose it is, but without a moral authority, there is no moral ought, and it's all a matter of preference and pragmatism.
                      I am not having a difficulty with "ought" and I do not subscribe to the concept of an ultimate moral authority, MM. Some of us experience an "ought" for no other reason than we have reasoned our way to a moral conclusion, and wish to follow that conclusion for no other reason than it appears "right" to us. We are doing right for its own sake - because we perceive it as right. Not because "that big bad dude over there says we have to."

                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      But even atheist instinctively know that moral obligation exists, but this is at odds with their worldview, and so they're stuck with a dilemma.
                      Its not a dilemma in the least, MM. I experience "ought" because moralizing is the process of classifying action into "ought" and "ought not." We do that for a variety of things, but we tend to reserve the term "moral" for actions most closely associated with our most dearly/profoundly held valuing. I don't need a "moral authority" to give me my sense of ought. Some of that sense is internal. Some is communal. None of it depends on a "supreme being."

                      Only someone who has never moved from "authority-driven decision making" to "self-actualized decision making" will struggle with the dilemma. For them - if there is not an "ultimate authority" all is pandemonium and anarchy. The idea that they can actually think for themselves and come to moral conclusions, and weigh those conclusions with their friends, family, and community, boggles their imagination.
                      Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-20-2019, 12:31 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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Except, unlike with empirical scientific discoveries, you are speaking of subjective ideals, apples and oranges.
                        No, we are talking about the manifestation of higher intelligence of humans vis-à-vis Chimpanzees.

                        You have no idea what we are moving towards, it may in fact undermine cohesion.
                        Human societies are continually changing, sometimes for the better sometimes for the worse. One thing for sure, they are never static.

                        Oh please, we have the evidence of Western Civilization. The greatest Civilization in human history, which was Patriarchal.
                        In human history we have many great societies. All have changed and adapted over the millennia. Patriarchies have not been their defining feature but rather a part of the evolution of human society. Some societies been mighty monarchy’s (ancient Persia and China), some have been democracies (ancient Greece) and some have evolved from absolute monarchies to constitutional monarchies as per the UK…which was the greatest empire the world has known. The significant feature is that they all change over time as we see with the advanced countries of today, in which equal rights for all apply. That’s what it means to be intelligent apes that have the ability to modify society, unlike our simian predecessors which haven't.

                        Really? What countries have the two parent, with biological children family, done well.
                        Granting equal rights to women is not the cause of the social problems you previously outlined; poverty and the ghettoization of inner-city living is the root cause. Broken families are the regrettable outcome. We do not see this to the same extent in societies with a more equitable distribution of wealth and welfare programs including paid maternity leave...as per Australia.

                        No it is not, it is a direct effect of feminism. And how is killing our own offspring good for a society?
                        Abortions have always been performed. The direct effect of feminism is that they are now safer for the woman, surely a good thing.

                        And abortion rights have split this country right down the middle, until this day - undermining social cohesion.
                        So did slavery split the US right down the middle with the very congregation NOW opposing abortion, being one of the chief proponents of slavery. That wasn’t good for social cohesion either.
                        “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.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          No, we are talking about the manifestation of higher intelligence of humans vis-à-vis Chimpanzees.
                          Sure and the Nazis and Communists had higher intelligence too. What does that have to do with equal rights and where they come from?



                          Human societies are continually changing, sometimes for the better sometimes for the worse. One thing for sure, they are never static.
                          Right so we don't know if we are moving towards more cohesion.

                          In human history we have many great societies. All have changed and adapted over the millennia. Patriarchies have not been their defining feature but rather a part of the evolution of human society. Some societies been mighty monarchy’s (ancient Persia and China), some have been democracies (ancient Greece) and some have evolved from absolute monarchies to constitutional monarchies as per the UK…which was the greatest empire the world has known. The significant feature is that they all change over time as we see with the advanced countries of today, in which equal rights for all apply. That’s what it means to be intelligent apes that have the ability to modify society, unlike our simian predecessors which haven't.
                          But just about all of those were actually patriarchies.

                          Granting equal rights to women is not the cause of the social problems you previously outlined; poverty and the ghettoization of inner-city living is the root cause. Broken families are the regrettable outcome. We do not see this to the same extent in societies with a more equitable distribution of wealth and welfare programs including paid maternity leave...as per Australia.
                          Well I would like to see how many fatherless homes are in the countries you speak of. And we have a very robust welfare system, since the 60s. And fatherless homes only increased since then. Back in 1960, when things were arguable worse for black families only 19.9% of children were in fatherless homes, today it is closer to 70%. You can't blame that on ghettoization or lack of welfare since it was much worse in 1960.

                          http://fathers.com/statistics-and-re...atherlessness/



                          Abortions have always been performed. The direct effect of feminism is that they are now safer for the woman, surely a good thing.
                          So you are on record saying that more abortions is a good thing for a society.


                          So did slavery split the US right down the middle with the very congregation NOW opposing abortion, being one of the chief proponents of slavery. That wasn’t good for social cohesion either.

                          You are the one who say that what supports social cohesion is good, well this doesn't, so by your own definition it is bad...
                          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...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Sure and the Nazis and Communists had higher intelligence too. What does that have to do with equal rights and where they come from?
                            ALL Homo sapiens have higher intelligence than Chimpanzees. Hence, unlike the latter which are locked into their evolved social structure, we can adapt and modify ours including promoting equal rights for all.

                            Right so we don't know if we are moving towards more cohesion.
                            Time will tell.

                            But just about all of those were actually patriarchies.
                            There are many different forms of patriarchal society just as there are many forms of organizing non-patriarchal societies…including, in the advanced countries of today, where equal rights apply to all. Is this a bad thing?

                            Well I would like to see how many fatherless homes are in the countries you speak of. And we have a very robust welfare system, since the 60s. And fatherless homes only increased since then. Back in 1960, when things were arguable worse for black families only 19.9% of children were in fatherless homes, today it is closer to 70%. You can't blame that on ghettoization or lack of welfare since it was much worse in 1960.
                            Certainly, fathers in the household are important, but this is not the argument. The argument is your unevidenced assertion that granting equal rights to women is the cause of this problem. There is no reason to assume this is the case. There are many factors at work, including poverty. And for all your vaunted “robust welfare system” in the US you do not have fully paid maternity or paternity leave as we have in Australia, which directly benefits parental caring.

                            So you are on record saying that more abortions is a good thing for a society.
                            No. I’m on record saying that safe hygienic abortions are preferable to dangerous backyard abortions.

                            You are the one who say that what supports social cohesion is good, well this doesn't, so by your own definition it is bad...
                            I have never said that say that what supports social cohesion is necessarily good in and of itself. Clearly, Democracies are a fairer means of maintaining social cohesion than say, Oligarchies.
                            “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.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              ALL Homo sapiens have higher intelligence than Chimpanzees. Hence, unlike the latter which are locked into their evolved social structure, we can adapt and modify ours including promoting equal rights for all.
                              Right, and we can also find more novel ways to control and exploit our fellow man. Just look at China. So much for equal rights...



                              There are many different forms of patriarchal society just as there are many forms of organizing non-patriarchal societies…including, in the advanced countries of today, where equal rights apply to all. Is this a bad thing?
                              Like you said it is an open question whether it is a good thing or not. We do know that patriarchal societies worked pretty well in the past.


                              Certainly, fathers in the household are important, but this is not the argument. The argument is your unevidenced assertion that granting equal rights to women is the cause of this problem. There is no reason to assume this is the case. There are many factors at work, including poverty. And for all your vaunted “robust welfare system” in the US you do not have fully paid maternity or paternity leave as we have in Australia, which directly benefits parental caring.
                              I blamed feminism, not equal rights per se. And the fact is, as far as fatherless homes, blacks for instance did much better before the 60s, when things were arguably much worse. So you can't blame that on poverty.


                              No. I’m on record saying that safe hygienic abortions are preferable to dangerous backyard abortions.
                              Except you would reduce the numbers of abortions if they were illegal. And that is a good thing.


                              I have never said that say that what supports social cohesion is necessarily good in and of itself. Clearly, Democracies are a fairer means of maintaining social cohesion than say, Oligarchies.
                              You said: Whatever benefits the social cohesion necessary for our survival as a species is what’s “right”.

                              And I don't see how fatherless homes or abortion (which has split this country) are good for cohesion...
                              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...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                That is actually a very easy question for the theist to answer: I ought to be moral because it has been commanded by God who is the ultimate moral authority.
                                Also known as the is ought fallacy.
                                "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                155 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X