Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.

Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.

Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.

Seeking and demanding sanctity is one of the main five best rules of morality. Those rules shown below closely resemble most religious rules. For humankind to give an idea sanctity they must give sacrifice to it. The sacrifice that we must all do is deny women equality and give men a lower position in rulership. Men must bend the knee to women and elevate them to our ultimate sovereign. Those women and men who do not demand this are not in the best moral state of mind and should try to move to it.

We are all natural animals and follow the hierarchical rules of those species which have Alpha males. The main survival strategy of such a species is that the Alpha males will fight to the death to insure that the Beta females live.

Females, as the incubators of life and the most important within that species, must have the highest protection to insure that they will survive to continue the life of that species. Men, being the most physically powerful and having a more natural tendency to rule, must take a leadership role to insure this continuity. The Alpha of any species fights to insure that the Beta always has the highest position. The Kings and all other men IOW, must rule as the power behind the throne but the Queen is the one who must always sit on that throne and rule over the King.

The research done by Mr. Haigt shows that the right wings of religions and politics show more concern with tribalism than do the left wings. It appears then that if we are to move to the most advantageous moral position then it is to the right wings to promote it. As an esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian, I am the left of center and not in the best camp to sell the view that women should rule even as I recognize that they should. The right has been given a wakeup call thanks to president Obama being re-elected. FMPOV then, the right needs a new platform if they are to survive, as they should to balance the political spectrum.

Generally speaking only; women are the weaker of the sexes and are better places to know what the requirements of survival are and should thus rule. Women should then demand the full protection and sacrifice of the Alphas males as that is the natural order of hierarchical species and must be to insure survival. This sacrifice gives sanctity to our species and insures it’s longevity. The religious and political right seem better suited to lead towards this end.

In my opinion, men and women who do not agree with this premise are not taking the best moral position for families or for society at large. This issue is more in the hands of men than women and in that sense men would be more immoral than women if they do not deny women equality and place women above themselves.

Should the religious and political right take up this best moral position and demand that equality be denied to all women and demand that they be given their rightful and natural position above men?

Please see the research and logic behind this premise.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHc-yMcfAY4

Regards
DL


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Since the human species is

Since the human species is not hurting from a lack of population, I don't see the need to prioritize women merely because they are capable of giving birth. Furthermore, I will NEVER work to establish a society where men are thought of as inherently inferior to women.

 

 


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Since

blacklight915 wrote:

Since the human species is not hurting from a lack of population, I don't see the need to prioritize women merely because they are capable of giving birth. Furthermore, I will NEVER work to establish a society where men are thought of as inherently inferior to women.

 

 

So what would you do if there was only room for you or a woman in the lifeboat of a sinking ship?

Flip for it?

Man has always been the protectors of the nations and family and you would just ignore that would you?

Tsk tsk.

Why do you see so many men disrespecting women and visa versa?

Because women do not need us anymore in that way and we do not women doing their duty toward family by recognizing that men are willing to die for them.

We are losing our role as hunter and provider and you would also give up your role as protector.

Tsk, tsk.

Let women gather cities and nations and rule.

Our job and duty is to protect.

Regards
DL


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I Am wrote:So what

Greatest I Am wrote:

So what would you do if there was only room for you or a woman in the lifeboat of a sinking ship?

Depends on the woman.

 

Greatest I Am wrote:

Man has always been the protectors of the nations and family and you would just ignore that would you? We are losing our role as hunter and provider and you would also give up your role as protector.

I try to protect those I care about, whether they be male or female. Do you not think women also wish to protect those they care about?

 

Greatest I Am wrote:

Let women gather cities and nations and rule.  Our job and duty is to protect.

Some men would make better rulers than some women. Some women would make better protectors than some men. Should we not choose the person best qualified for the job?

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I am

Greatest I am wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

Since the human species is not hurting from a lack of population, I don't see the need to prioritize women merely because they are capable of giving birth. Furthermore, I will NEVER work to establish a society where men are thought of as inherently inferior to women.

 

 

So what would you do if there was only room for you or a woman in the lifeboat of a sinking ship? Flip for it? Man has always been the protectors of the nations and family and you would just ignore that would you? Tsk tsk. Why do you see so many men disrespecting women and visa versa? Because women do not need us anymore in that way and we do not women doing their duty toward family by recognizing that men are willing to die for them. We are losing our role as hunter and provider and you would also give up your role as protector. Tsk, tsk. Let women gather cities and nations and rule. Our job and duty is to protect. Regards DL

No, our job as a species is to RECOGNIZE that we need each other. Role playing is bullshit and nowhere near our own narcissistic view of what should be, in regards to evolution. Utimately we are both equally important.

You play right into his hands by saying "our job". There is no script to life or evolution. Saying that there are physical differences ON AVERAGE, does not negate the role of males or females as fitting into a script.

So when you say it is OUR JOB to protect it fails to take into account that BOTH fight and nurture to protect. There is no real brawn vs nipple role in evolution because both work and both fail.

Men are not the tools of women simply to exalt them, but brawn itself is has not stopped war or death or brought peace on any semblence of a consistant level.

You go with what works, not scripts, not rolls. If a woman is suited to be the protector, you go with it. If she is suited to be the bread winner, you go with it. If a stay at home dad works, you go with it.

Brawn certainly is needed for protection, but it is only one aspect of evolution and should not negate brain power, which more often than not, reduces the need for that brawn, because it takes a very pragmatic approach rather than a knuckle dragging approach. Since women ON AVERAGE are not driven by testosterone, they are ON AVERAGE, less likely to default to violence.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
I don't understand

I don't understand why one sex should necessarily be above another.

Take my girlfriend and I, we treat each other as equals.

OF COURSE, if there were only room enough for one of us on a life boat I would push for her to survive over me, to address your earlier analogy.

If I had to die to save her life, I would gladly do so and would go to any lengths, legal or illegal to protect her from harm.

These are extreme examples. But, on a daily basis, we pretty much live as equals, neither RULES or dominates.

I don't think that she nor any of her friends wish to be bowed down to and told to be given total control over their significant others.

Yet, by your logic, this is immoral behavior ?

Even if we were to have a world dominated by women, what makes you think that would be any better ?

There are plenty of women sociopaths, users, manipulators, con artists, takers and murderers, just like men.

Your links don't seem to really provide any empirical evidence that what you are suggesting would make the world any better or any more "moral". So I don't know where you are coming up with this.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
I'm waiting on science to

I'm waiting on science to create the lifelike female sex robots and artificial wombs so I can clone myself.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I'm waiting on

EXC wrote:

I'm waiting on science to create the lifelike female sex robots and artificial wombs so I can clone myself.

I wouldn't mind just having some female sex robots that look like real women.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 If longevity of the

 If longevity of the species is the sole concern it would seem based on human history that patriarchal societies have by far a better track record. Which matriarchal society exists today as a developed modern country? Most likely due to patriarchal societies willingness to use violence to expand borders/resources and excessive breeding by not worry about things like the females permission before mating.

However, I think it is pretty obvious that the survival of the species is not in danger at any time in the near future and the highest risk to our species currently is probably over population as opposed to under population. (although imo those fears tend to be exaggerated as well) That being the case, there is no logical reason why we should structure society as to inherently give either males or females a higher status than the other. 

All I see here is that once again "morality" is being used as a justification to be a scumbag and abuse others, which it seems like is that case the vast majority of time that people claim "morality". Morality is vastly overrated and used far more often to justify causing suffering than it is used to prevent it. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Greatest

blacklight915 wrote:

Greatest I Am wrote:

So what would you do if there was only room for you or a woman in the lifeboat of a sinking ship?

Depends on the woman.

 

Greatest I Am wrote:

Man has always been the protectors of the nations and family and you would just ignore that would you? We are losing our role as hunter and provider and you would also give up your role as protector.

I try to protect those I care about, whether they be male or female. Do you not think women also wish to protect those they care about?

 

Greatest I Am wrote:

Let women gather cities and nations and rule.  Our job and duty is to protect.

Some men would make better rulers than some women. Some women would make better protectors than some men. Should we not choose the person best qualified for the job?

 

Let's get past the life boat.

You would give the seat to those you love but not to a woman you did not know.

Do I have that right?

You do not believe in the notion of saving women and children first. Correct?

Just so you do not think I completely ignored your last question, the answer is yes but with a caveat that I will explain later if we are on the same moral page otherwise you will not understand the POV.

Regards
DL


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Greatest I am

Brian37 wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

Since the human species is not hurting from a lack of population, I don't see the need to prioritize women merely because they are capable of giving birth. Furthermore, I will NEVER work to establish a society where men are thought of as inherently inferior to women.

 

 

So what would you do if there was only room for you or a woman in the lifeboat of a sinking ship? Flip for it? Man has always been the protectors of the nations and family and you would just ignore that would you? Tsk tsk. Why do you see so many men disrespecting women and visa versa? Because women do not need us anymore in that way and we do not women doing their duty toward family by recognizing that men are willing to die for them. We are losing our role as hunter and provider and you would also give up your role as protector. Tsk, tsk. Let women gather cities and nations and rule. Our job and duty is to protect. Regards DL

No, our job as a species is to RECOGNIZE that we need each other. Role playing is bullshit and nowhere near our own narcissistic view of what should be, in regards to evolution. Utimately we are both equally important.

You play right into his hands by saying "our job". There is no script to life or evolution. Saying that there are physical differences ON AVERAGE, does not negate the role of males or females as fitting into a script.

So when you say it is OUR JOB to protect it fails to take into account that BOTH fight and nurture to protect. There is no real brawn vs nipple role in evolution because both work and both fail.

Men are not the tools of women simply to exalt them, but brawn itself is has not stopped war or death or brought peace on any semblence of a consistant level.

You go with what works, not scripts, not rolls. If a woman is suited to be the protector, you go with it. If she is suited to be the bread winner, you go with it. If a stay at home dad works, you go with it.

Brawn certainly is needed for protection, but it is only one aspect of evolution and should not negate brain power, which more often than not, reduces the need for that brawn, because it takes a very pragmatic approach rather than a knuckle dragging approach. Since women ON AVERAGE are not driven by testosterone, they are ON AVERAGE, less likely to default to violence.

So if we are all equal, would you take a seat in the life boat of a sinking ship with women and children left behind?

Regards
DL


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:I

harleysportster wrote:

I don't understand why one sex should necessarily be above another.

Take my girlfriend and I, we treat each other as equals.

OF COURSE, if there were only room enough for one of us on a life boat I would push for her to survive over me, to address your earlier analogy.

If I had to die to save her life, I would gladly do so and would go to any lengths, legal or illegal to protect her from harm.

These are extreme examples. But, on a daily basis, we pretty much live as equals, neither RULES or dominates.

I don't think that she nor any of her friends wish to be bowed down to and told to be given total control over their significant others.

Yet, by your logic, this is immoral behavior ?

Even if we were to have a world dominated by women, what makes you think that would be any better ?

There are plenty of women sociopaths, users, manipulators, con artists, takers and murderers, just like men.

Your links don't seem to really provide any empirical evidence that what you are suggesting would make the world any better or any more "moral". So I don't know where you are coming up with this.

The morality is tied to sanctity as spoken of in the link.

I said nothing of

"she nor any of her friends wish to be bowed down to and told to be given total control over their significant others."

Man in large part rules today and we do not for such.

If you are ready as you say to bow to the needs of women in times of crisis, why would you change that policy when not in times of crisis?

What did you perceive was meant by sanctity in that Ted clip?

Regards
DL


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:  That

Beyond Saving wrote:

  That being the case, there is no logical reason why we should structure society as to inherently give either males or females a higher status than the other. 

 

Yet if you look at the world, especially the Abrahamic cults, you will see that through their religion, they have structured things where woman is to be forever ruled by men.

If all are to be equal, as you say, would you take a seat in the life boat of a sinking ship with women and children left behind?

Regards
DL


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I am wrote:The

Greatest I am wrote:
The morality is tied to sanctity as spoken of in the link. I said nothing of "she nor any of her friends wish to be bowed down to and told to be given total control over their significant others." Man in large part rules today and we do not for such. If you are ready as you say to bow to the needs of women in times of crisis, why would you change that policy when not in times of crisis? What did you perceive was meant by sanctity in that Ted clip? Regards DL

Ok, my mistake for taking your comment out of context by saying "bowing down and be given control". I guess I am reading this OP the wrong way and not really getting it, because I thought that is what you were getting at. I guess you'll have to put it into more simpler terms for me to comprehend.

I have no problem with a woman President or leader, if that is what you ARE getting at in the OP. Doesn't bother me at all.

As far as a non-crisis policy, I am not sure what you mean ? I tend to treat all people the same. I treat them the way that I want to be treated. It's only when they step out of line or disrespect me that they find out that I am not always such a nice guy.

Now of course, I handle women differently in those matters than I do men. For instance, I would never strike or hit a woman, whereas that rule does not apply to other men. But other than that, you would have to be more specific about times of "non-crisis".

I mean, in emergency situations, by default, it is always women and children first.

As I have already stated, if it was my girlfriend's life or mine, I would give mine if it saved hers. But, in a time of "non-crisis" as you put it, we pretty much treat each other the same.

I guess you'll have to be a little more specific for me to understand.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Ummmm.

Greatest I am" wrote:
Yet if you look at the world, especially the Abrahamic cults, you will see that through their religion, they have structured things where woman is to be forever ruled by men.

You know, coming onto an Atheist Website and saying "But this is what the Abrahamic Religions do" to try and support your argument probably isn't going to work very well.

 

Just Sayin'

Oh, in response to your question about Lifeboats, my order is; "Screw all that I'ma go hang with the Band on the Deck."

 

@harleysportster: "Never Hit a Woman" is a retarded rule that is down-right insulting to both Women and Men. A better rule is "Don't hit anyone first, but defend yourself if need be."

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I Am wrote:You

Greatest I Am wrote:

You would give the seat to those you love

If they wanted me to, yes.

 

Greatest I Am wrote:

but not to a woman you did not know.

I should be no more likely to give the seat to a woman I didn't know than to a man I didn't know.

 

Greatest I Am wrote:

You do not believe in the notion of saving women and children first. Correct?

In general, I think children should be given a higher priority. I do not, however, think women should be given a higher priority than men. Being female does not automatically make one more worthy of life.

 

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius

Sinphanius wrote:

 

@harleysportster: "Never Hit a Woman" is a retarded rule that is down-right insulting to both Women and Men. A better rule is "Don't hit anyone first, but defend yourself if need be."

I was merely addressing the issue about "non-crisis". I don't go around hitting anyone for that matter. Hell, I am not a badass or anything. Besides, acting like a bad ass is a good way of getting yourself shot with a gun or hit in the back of the head with a pipe.

Greatest I am asked me the question " So you would put women first in a crisis but change the policy in times of non-crisis ?"

I simply was trying to say that I pretty much treat everyone the same. I treat people the way that I want to be treated until I am disrespected, then I get disrespectful right back, just like 99.999% of the people that I know. The only thing that I could think of off of the top of my head was that I would not strike a woman (and I had some drunk bitch slap me right in the face a couple of years ago and certainly felt like it). You would need to clarify how I am being insulting to men and women by saying that I would not strike a woman.

If some guy comes up and punches me in the face (and he doesn't knock me out) I am probably going to swing back. If some woman were to actually attack me, I might restrain her, hold her down or whatever. But I am not going to just hit her right in the jaw or something.

Anyway, I am getting bored with the whole discussion anyway.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:
The morality is tied to sanctity as spoken of in the link. I said nothing of "she nor any of her friends wish to be bowed down to and told to be given total control over their significant others." Man in large part rules today and we do not for such. If you are ready as you say to bow to the needs of women in times of crisis, why would you change that policy when not in times of crisis? What did you perceive was meant by sanctity in that Ted clip? Regards DL

Ok, my mistake for taking your comment out of context by saying "bowing down and be given control". I guess I am reading this OP the wrong way and not really getting it, because I thought that is what you were getting at. I guess you'll have to put it into more simpler terms for me to comprehend.

I have no problem with a woman President or leader, if that is what you ARE getting at in the OP. Doesn't bother me at all.

As far as a non-crisis policy, I am not sure what you mean ? I tend to treat all people the same. I treat them the way that I want to be treated. It's only when they step out of line or disrespect me that they find out that I am not always such a nice guy.

Now of course, I handle women differently in those matters than I do men. For instance, I would never strike or hit a woman, whereas that rule does not apply to other men. But other than that, you would have to be more specific about times of "non-crisis".

I mean, in emergency situations, by default, it is always women and children first.

As I have already stated, if it was my girlfriend's life or mine, I would give mine if it saved hers. But, in a time of "non-crisis" as you put it, we pretty much treat each other the same.

I guess you'll have to be a little more specific for me to understand.

We are on the same page basically. Many men are. Yet do not bring that women first policy to everyday practice. That seems rather hypocritical to me as I carry the same policy all the time. You and I are in the equal plus side on emergencies. I carry that policy to always. You do not.

Why is that not always your policy?

Regards
DL


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Greatest

blacklight915 wrote:

Greatest I Am wrote:

You would give the seat to those you love

If they wanted me to, yes.

 

Greatest I Am wrote:

but not to a woman you did not know.

I should be no more likely to give the seat to a woman I didn't know than to a man I didn't know.

 

Greatest I Am wrote:

You do not believe in the notion of saving women and children first. Correct?

In general, I think children should be given a higher priority. I do not, however, think women should be given a higher priority than men. Being female does not automatically make one more worthy of life.

 

 

Men have no wombs and FMPOV are the best at child rearing. The numbers of deadbeat dads as compared to unwed mothers enforces that view.

 

If you would take a seat in a lifeboat when women are still on the ship then you might want to follow the case of that Italian captain that the world has labelled Captain Coward.

 

Regards

DL

 

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I am wrote:We are

Greatest I am wrote:
We are on the same page basically. Many men are. Yet do not bring that women first policy to everyday practice. That seems rather hypocritical to me as I carry the same policy all the time. You and I are in the equal plus side on emergencies. I carry that policy to always. You do not. Why is that not always your policy? Regards DL

I simply said that I was unclear what was meant by the policy of non-crisis.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I am wrote: Men

Greatest I am wrote:

 

Men have no wombs and FMPOV are the best at child rearing. The numbers of deadbeat dads as compared to unwed mothers enforces that view.

 

 

Please provide evidence for this or cite your sources.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I am wrote:If you

Greatest I am wrote:

If you would take a seat in a lifeboat when women are still on the ship then you might want to follow the case of that Italian captain that the world has labelled Captain Coward.

So is Schettino only a coward because there were still women on the ship? If the cruise was a gay cruise with only male passengers would things be different and his actions excusable? I don't think so. What about all the other male passengers who abandoned ship before or at the same time as Schettino? Are they cowards? Should they have held back and waited for every female to be safely off the ship first? That is absurd. In such a situation every single male trying to play the role of hero and standing around waiting for all the females to get off the ship would simply be in the way and slow down the evacuation. The end result would be hundreds of more deaths all in the name of chivalry.

Schettino is a coward because as captain of the ship he had a duty to protect all of his passengers be they male, female, transsexual, hermaphrodite or asexual green space aliens. He shirked his duty to protect his own life which is why many people view him as a coward while I doubt most would put similar blame on some random male passenger that got into a lifeboat.

In any emergency situation leaders will emerge to help others based on their physical ability, special skills, position of authority and natural personality. While being a leader and rescuing others is certainly commendable and usually lead to being designated a hero, it is a good thing that usually only a few people adopt that role. Too many heroes all trying to risk their lives to save each other simply causes problems. I don't question the morality of those who decided to abandon the ship while others remained aboard. Such situations call for quick decisions and sometimes it is appropriate to be a hero and risk yourself to help others, sometimes it isn't- whether or not the person you are helping is male or female seems irrelevant. If I was on the ship and saw a male who for whatever reason clearly needed help and I judged myself to be in a position to be able to help him, I would.

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Sinphanius wrote:

 

@harleysportster: "Never Hit a Woman" is a retarded rule that is down-right insulting to both Women and Men. A better rule is "Don't hit anyone first, but defend yourself if need be."

I simply was trying to say that I pretty much treat everyone the same. I treat people the way that I want to be treated until I am disrespected, then I get disrespectful right back, just like 99.999% of the people that I know. The only thing that I could think of off of the top of my head was that I would not strike a woman (and I had some drunk bitch slap me right in the face a couple of years ago and certainly felt like it). You would need to clarify how I am being insulting to men and women by saying that I would not strike a woman.

I am still waiting on an explanation to your assertion about a retarded rule that is insulting to both men and women. Do you have a real argument to back that up ? Or are you just spewing some doggerel bullshit ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Schettino is a coward because as captain of the ship he had a duty to protect all of his passengers be they male, female, transsexual, hermaphrodite or asexual green space aliens. He shirked his duty to protect his own life which is why many people view him as a coward while I doubt most would put similar blame on some random male passenger that got into a lifeboat.

Thanks for clarifying the story Beyond, and I definitely agree with what you're saying.

 

harleysportster wrote:

I am still waiting on an explanation to your assertion about a retarded rule that is insulting to both men and women. Do you have a real argument to back that up? Or are you just spewing some doggerel bullshit?

I believe he/she finds the rule insulting because it seems to imply you think women are inherently more valuable than men.

 

 

to Greatest I Am: It seems you view women as inherently more valuable and worthy of life than men. Do you hold such a view?

 

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:

 

harleysportster wrote:

I am still waiting on an explanation to your assertion about a retarded rule that is insulting to both men and women. Do you have a real argument to back that up? Or are you just spewing some doggerel bullshit?

I believe he/she finds the rule insulting because it seems to imply you think women are inherently more valuable than men.

 

Then they are the one that is retarded.  I wouldn't punch a child, does that mean that because I wouldn't punch a little child, that it is somehow  insulting adults ?

How many times  growing up did we all hear the saying : Pick on somebody your own size ?

If they did not get the gist of what I was driving at, then let me make it a little more clearer for them. Any man that beats on a woman is a low life piece of fucking scum and if they think my rule is "retarded" they can feel free to shove it right up their fucking ass. And I don't care if  they are a man or a woman.

Maybe that will clear it up for them. They can address the argument, they can demonstrate where they take issue with it, or they can simply fuck off.

I am not aiming any hostility to you, Blacklight. But the more I looked at that response, the more it got under my skin.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I am wrote: If you

Greatest I am wrote:

 

If you would take a seat in a lifeboat when women are still on the ship then you might want to follow the case of that Italian captain that the world has labelled Captain Coward.

 

Regards

DL

 

I'd say , leave the lifeboat analogy out of the argument for the moment and stick to providing some form of empirical data that actually makes this a valid hypothesis. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
My my, such hostility

Huh, I had interpreted your "Anyway, I am getting bored with the whole discussion anyway." as a statement of "I don't really feel like having this discussion" so I forgot about it, but okay, since you're going to get so, insistent, hokay.

Now, I would like to thank you for making my point for me however, as your bringing hitting children into this discussion does more to demonstrate the problem I have with your lack of respect for Women, because there's a fairly big difference between Women and Children, what with one generally being considered to be a Responsible Adult capable of taking care of themselves, making choices, and living with the repercussions of those choices, and the other being children.

Unless you want to equate the capabilities of women to children in which case, again, thanks for making my point for me.

Your point about picking on someone your own size is another nice demonstration.  That combined with your statement that; "Any man that beats* on a woman is a low life piece of fucking scum" is fun.  Do you consider it impossible for a woman to be "The same size" as a Man?  Why?  Who does that say more about, me, or You?  Stop saying things about everyone and everything.

To be explicit about it, your rule assumes that women cannot defend themselves against men, which is insulting to women, and it assumes that men are incapable of varying their applied force, which is insulting to men.

And before you even try to suggest it, because someone always fucking does, accepting that "Never hit a Woman" as an absolute rule of conduct is a bad and insulting principle doesn't mean one instantly goes out and starts beating women, or even that they would want to do this.  I have rejected "Never hit a Woman" as an absolute principle, however I still have never hit a woman; I have never hit anyone.  But you don't need to start making all-encompassing pronouncements in order to not be a Dick.

If I feel the need to defend myself I will do so no matter what the gender or stature of the person, it only depends on whether I feel truly threatened.  Depending on the situation and opponent I will vary my response accordingly, starting with Non-Violent means, and progressing through Non-Injuring, Non-Lethal, and finally Lethal only as the situation demands.  And I will do this on a case by case basis, not on the basis of insultingly oversimplified rules applied to a massive grouping completely without concern to variation within that grouping.

Essentially, my problem with your rule boils down to: "Only a Sith deals in Absolutes Bro." 

 

* Oh yeah, I'm going to nip this potential Goal Post Shifting** or Slippery Slope Argument** right here.  There's a big difference between someone, anyone, of either gender, relentless beating on a person who can not or will not defend themselves, and two people actually fighting.  Again, unless you think even the strongest woman is incapable of even attempting to defend themselves against the weakest man, in which case again, thanks for making my point for me.

** I'm not saying you would try to do either, but most of the people I have this argument with do this.  I've gotten used to defusing this argument before it is made.

And of course, as always, if you feel I have misrepresented your beliefs in any way please feel free to explain.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
  I'd hit this.  

 

 

I'd hit this.

 

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote:And of

Sinphanius wrote:

And of course, as always, if you feel I have misrepresented your beliefs in any way please feel free to explain.

Now that I have an explanation, I am satisified. We're now on the same page. When I was speaking in context of hitting a woman, I was speaking in terms of abuse. I wouldn't beat anyone for that matter. Of course if I am attacked by anyone, I am going to defend myself.

Of course, if someone tries to throttle me, I am going to put an end to it.

But in any situation, I am never the one to swing first anyway. Somebody has to hit me first, swing at me first, advance on me first, before I get aggressive anyway.

So if I fucked my position up by speaking in terms of "never hitting a woman" without clarifying that I was referencing abuse, and if I misread your statements about defense, then the fuck up is on me.

 I apologize.

One day I'll learn to think before I type. I didn't make my position clear, I took off with a half-ass argument, didn't read your statements correctly, showed my ass and got refuted. It happens.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 

 

I'd hit this.

 

 

YIKES ! No breakfast for me this morning. I think I just lost my appetite or am feeling somewhat nauseous.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:How

harleysportster wrote:

How many times  growing up did we all hear the saying : Pick on somebody your own size ?

I am not aiming any hostility to you, Blacklight. But the more I looked at that response, the more it got under my skin.

That's ok, and I think I understand where you're coming from. Personally, I think you should only hit someone in defense of yourself, your property, or other people. However, I also think you should change the way you retaliate based on who the offending person is. You said something about this earlier, actually:

harleysportster wrote:

If some guy comes up and punches me in the face (and he doesn't knock me out) I am probably going to swing back. If some woman were to actually attack me, I might restrain her, hold her down or whatever. But I am not going to just hit her right in the jaw or something.

 


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
I see said the blind man

Ah okay, yeah, that's a position I can get behind.  And besides, it wasn't like I was terribly understanding since I did break out the 'Retarded' first.  Needlessly combative on my part as well, so I see your Apology and Raise you my Own.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 

 

I'd hit this.

 

 

lol, I wouldn't hit that in any sense of the word "hit"

 

Now I'd hit this. She would probably beat the crap out of me but I would enjoy it. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote:Ah okay,

Sinphanius wrote:

Ah okay, yeah, that's a position I can get behind.  And besides, it wasn't like I was terribly understanding since I did break out the 'Retarded' first.  Needlessly combative on my part as well, so I see your Apology and Raise you my Own.

I say we just blame it on the thread . Smiling

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: lol, I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

lol, I wouldn't hit that in any sense of the word "hit"

 

Now I'd hit this. She would probably beat the crap out of me but I would enjoy it. 

Thanks for finding a better photo than the one GodsUseForAMosquito posted, that picture almost psychologically warped me. Smiling Well, I am already warped, so I guess I can't use that description. Was that a dude or a chick in that first pic ? I didn't want to look at it long enough to figure out.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 That's my

 That's my wife.

 

 

 

 

 

just kidding. 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 That's my wife.

 just kidding. 

Laughing out loud

I was about to type, no wonder your an Atheist !

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:
We are on the same page basically. Many men are. Yet do not bring that women first policy to everyday practice. That seems rather hypocritical to me as I carry the same policy all the time. You and I are in the equal plus side on emergencies. I carry that policy to always. You do not. Why is that not always your policy? Regards DL

I simply said that I was unclear what was meant by the policy of non-crisis.

Then I jumped the gun. My bad my friend.

Regards
DL


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

 

Men have no wombs and FMPOV are the best at child rearing. The numbers of deadbeat dads as compared to unwed mothers enforces that view.

 

 

Please provide evidence for this or cite your sources.

Here is a rather balanced view that still shows 10 t0 15 % of dad's being deadbeat. If you need more then try google or ask damned near any man or woman.

http://www.readersdigest.ca/health/relationships/truth-about-deadbeat-dads

Regards
DL


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Beyond

blacklight915 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Schettino is a coward because as captain of the ship he had a duty to protect all of his passengers be they male, female, transsexual, hermaphrodite or asexual green space aliens. He shirked his duty to protect his own life which is why many people view him as a coward while I doubt most would put similar blame on some random male passenger that got into a lifeboat.

Thanks for clarifying the story Beyond, and I definitely agree with what you're saying.

 

harleysportster wrote:

I am still waiting on an explanation to your assertion about a retarded rule that is insulting to both men and women. Do you have a real argument to back that up? Or are you just spewing some doggerel bullshit?

I believe he/she finds the rule insulting because it seems to imply you think women are inherently more valuable than men.

 

 

to Greatest I Am: It seems you view women as inherently more valuable and worthy of life than men. Do you hold such a view?

 

 

 

Absolutely.

 

Regards

DL


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

 

If you would take a seat in a lifeboat when women are still on the ship then you might want to follow the case of that Italian captain that the world has labelled Captain Coward.

 

Regards

DL

 

I'd say , leave the lifeboat analogy out of the argument for the moment and stick to providing some form of empirical data that actually makes this a valid hypothesis. 

 

I don't think there is any such data.

Just tradition and good sense.

 

Regards

DL


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 

 

I'd hit this.

 

 

My eyes, my eyes,. Bastard, look what you have done to my eyes.

I did not really mean bastard. But my eyes, my eyes, look what you have done to my eyes.

Regards
DL


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Sinphanius wrote:

Ah okay, yeah, that's a position I can get behind.  And besides, it wasn't like I was terribly understanding since I did break out the 'Retarded' first.  Needlessly combative on my part as well, so I see your Apology and Raise you my Own.

I say we just blame it on the thread . Smiling

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDOoR1KppNs&feature=related

 

Regards

DL


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Greatest

Beyond Saving wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

If you would take a seat in a lifeboat when women are still on the ship then you might want to follow the case of that Italian captain that the world has labelled Captain Coward.

So is Schettino only a coward because there were still women on the ship? If the cruise was a gay cruise with only male passengers would things be different and his actions excusable? I don't think so. What about all the other male passengers who abandoned ship before or at the same time as Schettino? Are they cowards? Should they have held back and waited for every female to be safely off the ship first? That is absurd. In such a situation every single male trying to play the role of hero and standing around waiting for all the females to get off the ship would simply be in the way and slow down the evacuation. The end result would be hundreds of more deaths all in the name of chivalry.

Schettino is a coward because as captain of the ship he had a duty to protect all of his passengers be they male, female, transsexual, hermaphrodite or asexual green space aliens. He shirked his duty to protect his own life which is why many people view him as a coward while I doubt most would put similar blame on some random male passenger that got into a lifeboat.

In any emergency situation leaders will emerge to help others based on their physical ability, special skills, position of authority and natural personality. While being a leader and rescuing others is certainly commendable and usually lead to being designated a hero, it is a good thing that usually only a few people adopt that role. Too many heroes all trying to risk their lives to save each other simply causes problems. I don't question the morality of those who decided to abandon the ship while others remained aboard. Such situations call for quick decisions and sometimes it is appropriate to be a hero and risk yourself to help others, sometimes it isn't- whether or not the person you are helping is male or female seems irrelevant. If I was on the ship and saw a male who for whatever reason clearly needed help and I judged myself to be in a position to be able to help him, I would.

 

 

Women and children first.

I picked up this bit after reading I became interested in where and when it came into practice and this is what I found
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first
Women and Children First

History

During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, ships typically did not carry enough lifeboats to save all the passengers and crew in the event of disaster. In 1870, answering a question at the House of Commons of the United Kingdom about the sinking of PS Normandy, George Shaw-Lefevre said that[3]

"in the opinion of the Board of Trade, it will not be possible to compel the passenger steamers running between England and France to have boats sufficient for the very numerous passengers they often carry. They would encumber the decks, and rather add to the danger than detract from it"

By the turn of the 20th century larger ships meant more people could travel, but safety rules regarding lifeboats remained out of date: for example, British legislation concerning the number of lifeboats was based on the tonnage of a vessel and only encompassed vessels of "10,000 gross tons and over". The result was that a sinking usually involved a moral dilemma for passengers and crew as to whose lives should be saved with the limited available lifeboats.

The practice of women and children first arose from the chivalrous actions of soldiers during sinking of the Royal Navy troopship HMS Birkenhead in 1852, which was memorialized in newspapers and paintings of the time, and in poems such as Rudyard Kipling's "Soldier an' Sailor Too." In that wreck the captain ordered the wives and children aboard (20 in all) to enter the only small lifeboat available, saving them, while the men stayed on board until the ship was wrecked. Only about 25% of the men survived the wreck and none of the senior officers did. Samuel Smiles, in his 1859 book Self-Help, described the principle being applied during Siege of Lucknow.[4] The specific phrase first appeared in a novel by William Douglas O'Connor entitled Harrington: A True Story of Love in 1860.[5]

RMS Titanic survivors aboard a collapsible lifeboat
Although never part of international maritime law, the phrase was popularised by its usage on the RMS Titanic,[6] where, as a consequence of this practice, 74% of the women on board were saved and 52% of the children, but only 20% of the men.[7] Some officers on the Titanic misinterpreted the order from Captain Smith, and tried to prevent men from boarding the lifeboats.[8][9] It was intended that women and children would board first, with any remaining free spaces for men. Because so few men were saved on the Titanic, the men who did survive were initially branded as cowards, including White Star official, J. Bruce Ismay.[10]

There is no legal basis for the protocol of women and children first — according to International Maritime Organization regulations, ships have 30 minutes to load all passengers into lifeboats and maneuver the boats away.[11] History has furthermore shown that application of the protocol has been the exception rather than the rule. An Uppsala University study published in April 2012, found that historical survival rates have been in favor of adult males rather than women or children. The paper analyzed 18 maritime disasters covering a period of one and a half centuries, from 1852 to 2011. The same study found that crew members have a relative survival advantage over passengers. The particular case of RMS Titanic is therefore not representative of maritime conduct in general.[12]

The clothing worn by women, notably in the Victorian era, has played a role in the historical survival rates of men vs women at sea. With the sinking of the Royal Charter, the women were still dressing below decks when they should have been mustering with the men on the deck to abandon ship; their bulkier clothing also limited their ability to swim in the heavy surf.[13]

Concerns

Some writers have argued that the entire concept of putting women first in an emergency may be merely a means of promoting an idea of essential gender differences which may then be used to justify other inequalities that disfavor women.[14] The British ruling class used the myth of male chivalry at sea to justify denying women the right to vote. According to their argument, there was no reason for women to vote since men would always put the interests of women ahead of their own interests.[15]

I damned near choked when reading this last. Sounds like you would not.

Regards
DL


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I Am

Greatest I Am wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

to Greatest I Am: It seems you view women as inherently more valuable and worthy of life than men. Do you hold such a view?

Absolutely.

WOW...just...WOW.  I think I'm done talking with you.

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I am

Greatest I am wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

 

Men have no wombs and FMPOV are the best at child rearing. The numbers of deadbeat dads as compared to unwed mothers enforces that view.

 

 

Please provide evidence for this or cite your sources.

Here is a rather balanced view that still shows 10 t0 15 % of dad's being deadbeat. If you need more then try google or ask damned near any man or woman. http://www.readersdigest.ca/health/relationships/truth-about-deadbeat-dads Regards DL

You seem to be comparing apples and oranges - 'deadbeat dads' (those that don't pay child support) are not the opposite to unwed mothers on the 'who's better at child rearing' scale.. Your original assertion is not only wildly speculative, but also makes no sense.

And this article cited says absolutely nothing about the quality of child-rearing - remember the law is generally on the woman's side when it comes to child custody - and therefore access to those children can be very lopsided between the parents.

 


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Greatest

blacklight915 wrote:

Greatest I Am wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

to Greatest I Am: It seems you view women as inherently more valuable and worthy of life than men. Do you hold such a view?

Absolutely.

WOW...just...WOW.  I think I'm done talking with you.

 

If you cannot think any better than you have shown then I thank you in advance for not wasting my time.

Equality has been denied women for most of recorded history. I think affirmative action to redress this injustice is owed women. If men do not pay a price, they will continue to do so.

If men and women were equal, I would advocate equality. They are not. Women need more protection than men as they bear children and generally are better at rearing them than men. For reproduction, which is what sustains us, men only need 3 seconds while women need 9 months.

To KIS, a quick question for you.

Should the strong protect the weak or should the weak protect the strong?

Regards
DL


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

 

Men have no wombs and FMPOV are the best at child rearing. The numbers of deadbeat dads as compared to unwed mothers enforces that view.

 

 

Please provide evidence for this or cite your sources.

Here is a rather balanced view that still shows 10 t0 15 % of dad's being deadbeat. If you need more then try google or ask damned near any man or woman. http://www.readersdigest.ca/health/relationships/truth-about-deadbeat-dads Regards DL

You seem to be comparing apples and oranges - 'deadbeat dads' (those that don't pay child support) are not the opposite to unwed mothers on the 'who's better at child rearing' scale.. Your original assertion is not only wildly speculative, but also makes no sense.

And this article cited says absolutely nothing about the quality of child-rearing - remember the law is generally on the woman's side when it comes to child custody - and therefore access to those children can be very lopsided between the parents.

 

 

 

Are you suggesting that men are better at child rearing than women and are more responsible in terms of keeping their children?

Regards
DL


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I am

Laughing out loud

They gotta quit kickin' my dog around.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I am wrote:Equality

Greatest I am wrote:

Equality has been denied women for most of recorded history. I think affirmative action to redress this injustice is owed women. If men do not pay a price, they will continue to do so.

Exactly how should we do so? What price should men pay today? Do you generally support punishing the descendants of people who committed injustices? 

 

Greatest I am wrote:

If men and women were equal, I would advocate equality. They are not.

You just suggested that denying equality for women is an injustice. Yet here you are denying that men and women are equal.

 

Greatest I am wrote:

Women need more protection than men as they bear children and generally are better at rearing them than men. For reproduction, which is what sustains us, men only need 3 seconds while women need 9 months.

3 seconds? Damn, I don't think I could go that fast if I tried.

So exactly why do women need more protection? Is there an outbreak of people attacking pregnant women? Sure, pregnant women generally have certain physical limitations that make it more difficult for them to do physically demanding activities and if you are in a position to it is certainly nice to help out. Other people also have physical limitations that can be temporary (say a broken arm) or permanent (say a paraplegic) and it is generally nice to lend a helping hand if you see someone in need regardless of sex. 

Greatest I am wrote:

To KIS, a quick question for you. Should the strong protect the weak or should the weak protect the strong? Regards DL

People should protect whomever they desire to protect. I don't think that strength necessarily conveys an obligation to protect another person on its own. Nor do I believe that people can be clear cut into weak/strong categories. A person can be both at one time and the reality is that physical strength is far less important today than it was in the past. The vast majority of people will go through their lives without a serious physical conflict. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Greatest

Beyond Saving wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

Equality has been denied women for most of recorded history. I think affirmative action to redress this injustice is owed women. If men do not pay a price, they will continue to do so.

Exactly how should we do so? What price should men pay today? Do you generally support punishing the descendants of people who committed injustices? 

 

 

Did you note the words affirmative action?

 

Do you think the U S government was wrong in it's efforts at affirmative action in the past to redress societal discrimination?

 

Regards

DL