## Female power over men

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

### Re: Female power over men

URUZ wrote:Freud might have something to say about you at this point, I would wager.

In any case, you have proved yourself to be a subcreature with the soul of a worm. And somehow enjoying that. I suppose wormy things are enjoyable to worms. I wouldn’t know.

Try living sometime, or don’t. I don’t give a fuck either way.

Uruz

Says the most ridiculed wannabe to ever disgrace his intellectual faculties on ILP. I'm still in bewilderment for how you're able to persistently show yourself, despite all the username swaps in apparent attempts to hide your notoriety: Void_X_Zero -> UrGod --> Uruz

For months last summer you gallivanted about with Nietzsche in shades until:

Sauwelios wrote:You may have the neck of a bull, but you don't have the eyes of an angel--which is why you cover the angel-eyed Nietzsche with sunglasses, and make him look like a douchebag.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175509&p=2677758&hilit=sunglasses#p2677758

And the very next day: poof, shady Nietzsche was gone and I was flabbergasted that you'd let the opinion of one bloke influence your identity (especially since I actually liked the pic). See what an impressionable little Urchin you've portrayed? There's your next username after you've worn-out the new one. And it's a nifty double entendre too Ur welcome.

You *should* take your vacuous calumny back to your safespace before I start mindlessly dispatching videos of your beloved Brother Nathanael in retort as I forgot he existed until you showed up showcasing your wormy wisdom in contribution of nothing other than being a general source of antagonization to anyone unfortunate enough to wander within your vicinity.

Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Female power over men

It's funny trying to have a dialogue with URUZ. Whenever you try to talk to him, he gets defensive and blurts out "kek" or some other infantile response. He is incapable of having a thorough discussion, anything resembling intelligence.

This indicates to me that URUZ is not actually producing his own topics. He's coping them from somebody else, probably one of Jakob or Fixed Cross's threads or forum. He's a lackey, a follower, incapable of his own ideas or unique interpretations.

Has he ever had a reasonable dialogue, interesting conversation, with somebody on this forum? No....

kek
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 2337
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: Female power over men

Pandora wrote:I will agree with serendipper on the risk taking difference. It’s not that women cannot take risks, I think it’s just not really their default state. For men, it seems more innate. Women often refer to it as “men doing stupid shit”, and their women sharing in the (often negative) consequences of those (often dangerous) actions. Although it is often observed in young guys, it is not necessarily so. I have seen men going through mid-life crisis or even much older men (retired) engaging in unnecessary risk taking (and ending up in a hospital...or worse). I think maybe it’s a part of man that refuses to be domesticated.
But their woman, too, is taking a risk in being with such a man.

Agreed,

Men have ZERO innate value in life. Those with nothing, have nothing to lose. This explains male risk-taking behavior instantly and simply. How can it be simplified further? Therefore, that also implies, that females do have innate value, and the very reason-why women "choose not" (lol yeah right) to "do stupid shit". Women are protected, from harm, from yourselves.

A male can suicide himself. Society can tolerate this. However society cannot tolerate the suicide and risky behaviors of women, or children (unless they're boys).
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 2337
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: Female power over men

Meno_ wrote:List of female philosophers:

I'm taking this one from the URUZ playbook of philosophical debate.

K-E-K
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 2337
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: Female power over men

Serendipper wrote:
WendyDarling wrote:Arc, unleash more dragon , roast Serendipper's hide to a medium well.

She should keep practicing with her marshmallows for a while longer

HAHAHAHA
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 2337
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: Female power over men

Urwrongx1000 wrote:It's funny trying to have a dialogue with URUZ. Whenever you try to talk to him, he gets defensive and blurts out "kek" or some other infantile response. He is incapable of having a thorough discussion, anything resembling intelligence.

It could be a simian mating call involuntarily elicited upon arousal as a response to environmental stimuli or perhaps monthly cycles. Probably best not to repeat it for who knows what might show up with a shiteatin grin in anticipation of a long night.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:
Meno_ wrote:List of female philosophers:

I'm taking this one from the URUZ playbook of philosophical debate.

K-E-K

Uh oh Better sleep with your pants on and a good tight belt tonight!

Men have ZERO innate value in life. Those with nothing, have nothing to lose.

I've not considered that angle before

Realistically, most dumb shit we do, we survive or we wouldn't be here. It only takes one man to knock-up many women, so we need that one man to be the best man who survives all the stupid shit. So it seems like it's a man's duty to do stupid shit to either: eliminate his faulty genes from the pool by failing to survive or claim his right to mate by surviving the unlikely thing. Most of the time we do survive the stupid shit, so it's not entirely sacrificing the false positives by virtue of the odds, although some false negatives may slip by. Idk, obviously it works or it wouldn't exist like it does.

Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Female power over men

Urwrongx1000 wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
WendyDarling wrote:Arc, unleash more dragon , roast Serendipper's hide to a medium well.

She should keep practicing with her marshmallows for a while longer

HAHAHAHA

Marshmallows? Oh, if you guys only knew.
The question ought to sometimes be "To use or not to use ~~ the marshmallows. There IS an art to knowing when to use them.

Come to think of it, you guys are the ones who need to be practicing with the marshmallows once in a while instead of always throwing the rocks or shooting one another down.

BTW, Serendipper, I am in the process of responding to your post, just in case you are in assuming mode again.
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."

"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."

“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant

Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker

Posts: 15657
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

### Re: Female power over men

Arcturus Descending wrote:BTW, Serendipper, I am in the process of responding to your post, just in case you are in assuming mode again.

Yes, you busted me, but that's mighty considerate of you to give me a progress report and I'd like to encourage more of that type of behavior.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Female power over men

Serendipper wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:BTW, Serendipper, I am in the process of responding to your post, just in case you are in assuming mode again.

Yes, you busted me, but that's mighty considerate of you to give me a progress report and I'd like to encourage more of that type of behavior.

Okay, Teach!
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."

"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."

“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant

Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker

Posts: 15657
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

### Re: Female power over men

If risk avoiding is a girls game, why aren't any of the supposed men here engaging the difficult point about the risks of pregnancy?
Why then has this thread become strictly about the supposed vices of Uruz?

Hmmm what could it possibly be?

Kek.

For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals

Jakob
ILP Legend

Posts: 7141
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

### Re: Female power over men

Serendipper

1. To serve their country.

Why is that defaultly always admirable? What if we don't agree with our country nor their wars?

As for the first, it shows a sense of loyalty and dedication ~ answering to the Call within IF we agree. Of course, we understand that sometimes on a subconscious level, we look on our country and our president as a Daddy figure, just like God is a Daddy figure and the church too. If we could only grow out of that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

As for the second, if we do not agree, we protest and we march. I do not go along with the slogan *Our country right or wrong*.

No cop enforcing vice laws can be moral and they're essentially armed clergy.

Hmm...that is a good description I think ~ armed clergy. But why can they not be coming from a place of morality if they, in essence, believe that these things are harmful for the community and the individual? I know. It is not such a black and white issue.
I think that it depends on how the laws are enforced. If it is done with great violence and the cop him/her -self indulges in these same vices, then I agree with you. There is no moral consciousness nor conscience there. Morality is only a tool, is it not?

5. Because they have come to realize that this is not a man's world anymore and they choose to follow the same spirit which brought the man into the Armed Forces.

I am not sure what you mean by this. If a woman, for the most part, cannot exercise the same rights as a man, then THAT to me is perversion of tradition.
Some forms of *tradition* need to be eradicated ~ like the man feeling that he owns the woman, she is just so much chattel to him, what he says *goes* and if she doesn't *stay in line* he can beat her.

Tradition in my book can often be a refusal to change, and a detrimental one at that!!!!!!1111

6. To get away from the kids. (with tongue in cheek).

That's funny, but who are the kids pawned off upon?

I only meant it to be funny. As a mother, I cannot really relate to that but that is just me. It might be as a result of my own upbringing. But I cannot really judge another woman unless she has deliberately abandoned her children. If her motivation and intent is for a good cause to her, than who am I to say?!

I think that if there is a good cause, we cannot think in terms of being *pawned off on someone*. There is usually some loving, caring and protective person to step in.
The question is: What good cause? How often has it been only in hindsight that we realize the so-called cause was not worth it.

Equal rights means equal sharing of the responsibilities which once belonged to the man.

Yep and leaves the kids dangling somewhere.

This one made me hesitate. There is truth in what you say depending on the situation/circumstances and the individuals. But might YOU think that for the most part the children can still be well taken care of, feel safe and secure ~ reasonably so at least?

The last time anyone has ever fought for freedom was the revolutionary war. The civil war, WWI and WWII, Korean, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and all the skirmishes did not protect nor establish my freedoms; only the revolutionary war.

The American Revolution, together with westward expansion and the market revolution, destroyed the hierarchical world inherited from the colonial era. As the expanding commercial society redefined property to include control over one's own labor, and the opening of the West enabled millions of American families to acquire land, old inequalities crumbled and the link between property and voting was severed. Political democracy became essential to American ideas of freedom. This was a remarkable development. "Democracy" in the eighteenth century was a negative idea, a term of abuse. The idea that sovereignty rightly belongs to the mass of ordinary, individual, and equal citizens represented a new departure. With its provisions for lifetime judges, a senate elected by state legislatures, and a cumbersome, indirect method of choosing the president, the national constitution hardly established a functioning democracy. But in the new republic, more and more citizens attended political meetings, became avid readers of newspapers and pamphlets, and insisted on the right of the people to debate public issues and to organize to affect public policy.
http://digitalhistory.hsp.org/pafrm/ess ... an-freedom

How old are you anyway?

I hate that soldiers flatter and congratulate themselves for "protecting my freedoms" when they've done nothing of the kind since my freedoms were never in danger.

I am not so sure how many of these do what you say.

I also wonder how some of these soldiers who do not feel as you think they do would feel on reading the above?
Might it make them feel that their friends died in vain or that they themselves have lost limbs in vain or become paralyzed in vain for doing what they felt was the right thing to do?

Would you say that the right to live, to exist, can be perceived as a freedom at least in a broad sense? So, these men and women who are consciously fighting and have fought terrorism are not in some sense protecting your freedom?
Are we all not inter-connected in a way?
You can also think of us as dominoes, beautifully organized and set up. It only takes one and they all come tumbling down.

Is it possible that you cannot know the way in which your freedom[s] may have been in danger since we are not told everything.
You seem to be coming from a place of such security believing that your freedoms were never in danger and perhaps, or maybe not, believing that they can never be in danger.
Looking through rose-colored glasses hides the pitfalls.

It is a great thing to live in the here and now but it also important to be able to SEE possibilities and the things which are capable of happening.

And they are not serving humanity, but serving their elitist masters.

That would depend on their consciousness and mentality, no?
Again, most issues are not black and white though you are in part correct. Look what happened in Nazi Germany. Vicious, cruel, barbaric acts by mindless men who thought nothing, felt nothing, but to follow their Fuhrer, a psychopath like their selves.

Serving humanity would be not having a war resulting in millions of dead humans.

I can agree with this. You may actually be a very empathetic person though you do not always come across that way. Just a thought.
The problem is that many do no want to serve humanity...only their own self-interests (although all things considered, for many of them, wanting a better life for their selves and children is not a terrible thing in itself) But for others, it was their greed, their hunger for power, their need to destroy, to savagely murder innocent children, women and men, ad continuum.
Why is it that we have conflicts and wars? Haven't evolved fully?

You should watch the Hellstorm movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psicZ2LdrzE The allies dropped bombs on German citizens, repeatedly, for nothing other than to have them roasted alive in the boiling asphalt of the streets. I would not flatter myself for being party to that. Then they ran about raping all the women and come how to parades and congratulate themselves for protecting my freedoms. Pft.

Thank you for sending *Hellstorm*. I am in the process of watching it. It is not such an easy thing to watch...it is disturbing and horrible to see how human life has so little value, especially innocent human life. I do not suppose that any nation is innocent and some are far more guilty than others. I cannot understand just what is accomplished by slaughtering so many people, dropping bombs over and over again on innocent people, especially in Dresden.
How do we justify doing that? We are, were like animals callously and blatantly killing innocents.
I would be interested in knowing how war crimes were judged considering all of the innocent civilian lives which were destroyed ON ALL SIDES.
Does ANYTHING GO during war?
I either never learned about these things (or perhaps they were downplayed) or forgot about them. I know it is a cliche but it is true. The more I learn, the more I realize how ignorant I am and how little I understand why we do the things which we do.

Then there was Nazi Germany and Hitler...their atrocities... but that certainly does not include all Germans, many of whom were against the Nazis.
It is heartbreaking knowing what we are capable of doing as human beings to one another and we always seem to think that we ourselves are in the right. War does not seem to make much sense to me, especially when we see such horrible acts such as the bombing of Germany, Germany's Blitz, which ALSO killed many innocent civilians. https://www.express.co.uk/news/history/ ... tory-facts, our senseless bombing of innocent civilians, including children, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Nazi's extermination of the Jews, including women and children, all told between 5 and 6 million.
War brings out the best in a human and the worst in a human. I suppose that Patton's statement that *Well is hell* was not such a simple statement. Could hell, if believed in, be any worse?

Here is an excerpt from someone named Octavusprime:
I know that Germany was obliterated during the war. I've seen the pictures of cities leveled by bombs. Unfortunately, this was the way of war back in this time. Both sides practiced carpet bombing of cities with the use of infernal bombs, it was a horrible time for man.

Despite the truth in much that is stated in this video, it is also full of German pride and says nothing of what Germany did. The propaganda that was used against the Germans is just regurgitated back at the Allies in this film. It is obvious to me that this film was made by those that at the very least are Nazi sympathizers. I am German myself but the tone of this film is disturbing. Intentionally disregarding what Nazi Germany did and just focusing on what the Allies did to the Germans. Some of it is absolutely true but to ignore what was done by Germany is in a way condoning the Nazi regime and ignoring German made atrocities.

In the beginning of the film the rise of the Nazi's is obviously glorified as a great thing. The information that follows would be easier to swallow if the video's creator at least acknowledged Nazi Germany's war crimes. The silence in this regard is deafening.

So in short: The allies did try to exterminate the people of Germany or at the very least kill so many of them that they would never be a danger to the world ever again. However the missing piece is that Nazi Germany planned on dominating the world under one flag. Hitler planned on being supreme king of the world. Both sides did heinous things and the horrors of WW2 should never be forgotten.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthr ... storm-2015

I do agree with everything which this person says.

I am going to listen to and watch: http://www.hellstormdocumentary.com/194 ... rld-war-2/ next.

Generals gathered in their masses,
just like witches at black masses.
Evil minds that plot destruction,
sorcerer of death's construction.
In the fields the bodies burning,
as the war machine keeps turning.
Death and hatred to mankind,
poisoning their brainwashed minds...Oh lord yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor

Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait `till their judgement day comes, yeah!

Now in darkness, world stops turning,
ashes where the bodies burning.
No more war pigs have the power,
hand of god has struck the hour.
Day of judgement, god is calling,
on their knees the war pigs crawling.
Begging mercy for their sins,
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings...Oh lord, yeah!

Taking a necessary risk undermines valor since there is no other option.

I am not sure if I agree with this but I will give it some thought. But please explain how the necessity of it undermines valor. Change my mind.

Taking unnecessary risks underpins valor since safer options exist.

This I can agree with because I do think that discretion IS the better part of valor.
Is it valor or is it stupidity brought about by the thrill of it all and the flow of adrenaline?

The person saving the child has no other option and can't be said to be brave because who can stand and watch a child drown?

But he or she does have an option. To give the excuse that they cannot.
It actually does depend on the individual though, does it not?
It comes down to how much we value human life, especially that of a child.
Another not so black and white issue.

But to swim without a purpose demonstrates fearlessness.

I often swim without a purpose. How is this fearlessness? I just love water.
Give me an example of what you mean since otherwise you might not be speaking of anything but one's own stupidity and foolishness.
I need context here.

Yes there was a barn spider that used to make its web every night and take it down in the morning. I took pics of it. We also have a lot of wolf spiders that do not build webs.

I did not know that spiders take their webs down. Perhaps it is simply not satisfied with it.

But I am curious about it? Is wheelbarrow a metaphor for something or are you one of those hard-working important members of society - a farmer?

It's a metaphor of having big balls. Facetious, yes

As an aside, this might be helpful.
https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/5-ways-to-keep-your-testicles-and-everything-they-stand-for-in-tip-top-shape-wcz/

You don't display the same valor on here. I doubt you'll even reply to this, if history is a guide.

Hmmm...What is it that they say one makes of him/her -self when they assume?
As I said somewhere above this post, discretion is the better part of valor.
Different circumstances decide different choices of behavior.

Anyway, I would be curious to know what you mean by "You don't display the same valor on here"[/u]

When you don't reply to a post, it appears that you're running away. Women typically do that, I've noticed. Men tend to stick it out longer.

*You* in the personal sense or are you speaking *universally*?
lol Appearances can be deceiving, can they not? But then again...
One thing though that I am aware of needing to learn is to not dive into waters too deep for me. But then again, how does one come to stretch one's self otherwise?
One can also at times forget that the little acorn can evolve into an Oak.
Then there is the balance of time and one's priorities. Time can sneak up on us like a thief in the night. One cannot get blood out of a stone.

Of course, now that I've said it, maybe you will, but I'm convinced you wouldn't have otherwise.

That is your own subjective thinking and lack of knowledge. I will not ask you to read some of my posts as time may not allow it.
We choose our battles and our war. It also depends on what we value and hold meaningful.

Well, I was right

Well, I believe there is no unselfish act, so any act of courage will ultimately be to one's own benefit.

I understand what you are saying but I am not so sure that this is totally true.
Could there be an example of where someone knows beyond the shadow of a doubt that saving someone would ultimately cost him his own life?

You save the baby from the burning building because you couldn't live with yourself if you did not, or possibly to gain honor among people. It would be a function of how you're put together and the cultural influences.

Yes, that could hold true for some. Would that make it less of a sacrifice not knowing the outcome?
Human beings are complex creatures. We are all put together differently.
What might be a cultural influence here? The value of a child's life over anything else?

Well, if I say "hold my beer while I ride this machine up this mountain just to see if I can", that is a needless risk.

How steep is the mountain and what machine is he riding? He may be reasonably sure that he could do it. He may be expert at it.
Is deep-sea diving and hot-air ballooning a needless risk? Many things are some degree of risky but do we say *no* to everything?
Do You yourself say *no* to everything? Where do you find your aha moments!
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."

"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."

“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant

Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker

Posts: 15657
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

### Re: Female power over men

Sorry that the above post is a tad too long.
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."

"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."

“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant

Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker

Posts: 15657
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

### Re: Female power over men

None of the women folk will reply to my posts I see.
"I'm sorry, but the lifestyle you've ordered that you've grown accustomed to is completely out of stock. Have a nice day! "-$$Zero_Sum Evil Neo-Nazi Extraordinaire. Posts: 2876 Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm Location: U.S.S.A- Newly lead Bolshevik Soviet block. Also known as Weimar America. ### Re: Female power over men Arc and I have answered some of your previous posts. Go back and reread, you've forgotten. I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL! I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy. Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat. WendyDarling Heroine Posts: 7459 Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am Location: Hades ### Re: Female power over men Jakob wrote:If risk avoiding is a girls game, why aren't any of the supposed men here engaging the difficult point about the risks of pregnancy? You are the only one forwarding that idea, which I have already addressed, then you scurried away in terror lest you became involved in "peripheral bantering" which may have resulted in the shattering of your Weltanschauung if not for your early withdrawal. If you seriously want to debate me, then grow a pair and I'll consider devoting time and energy into someone who won't retreat to his safe space in fear of mere words. Boo! Why then has this thread become strictly about the supposed vices of Uruz? You mean Urchin? Kek. Are you advocating: Kill Every Kike? or Kiss Every Knob? Obviously you have your kisser firmly affixed to some ideological knob or else you wouldn't be religiously dispensing infantile murmurings as if you're privy to some recluse and intimate group of losers who pride themselves on peeing like little boys. Pepe the Frog designated a hate symbol by ADL Ping me after you grow up and no longer need gang affiliation of urchins to affirm your worth. Serendipper Philosopher Posts: 2178 Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm ### Re: Female power over men Arcturus Descending wrote:Sorry that the above post is a tad too long. No worries, I can tackle it. Hold my beer! Serendipper Philosopher Posts: 2178 Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm ### Re: Female power over men Arcturus Descending wrote: 1. To serve their country. Why is that defaultly always admirable? What if we don't agree with our country nor their wars? As for the first, it shows a sense of loyalty and dedication ~ answering to the Call within IF we agree. Of course, we understand that sometimes on a subconscious level, we look on our country and our president as a Daddy figure, just like God is a Daddy figure and the church too. If we could only grow out of that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 As for the second, if we do not agree, we protest and we march. I do not go along with the slogan *Our country right or wrong*. A good soldier obeys orders like a cog in a machine and I don't believe anyone could be called "loyal" who obeyed only when in agreement with the command. When you join the military, you relinquish the right to march in the streets in protest of an unjust war. They want their cake and free healthcare too, the honor of wearing the uniform without the risk of serving at the will of the executive branch. This is not how it works, and if they somehow missed this when they signed up then they need to realize it quickly. Asking that active duty members of the military honor their oath and refrain from politics in no way muffles national debate around defense and security issues. Rather, it protects a basic principle of our democracy—that the armed services do not dictate policy but carry out the will of the people and their elected leaders. https://www.thedailybeast.com/soldiers- ... of-service No cop enforcing vice laws can be moral and they're essentially armed clergy. Hmm...that is a good description I think ~ armed clergy. But why can they not be coming from a place of morality if they, in essence, believe that these things are harmful for the community and the individual? I know. It is not such a black and white issue. I think that it depends on how the laws are enforced. If it is done with great violence and the cop him/her -self indulges in these same vices, then I agree with you. There is no moral consciousness nor conscience there. Morality is only a tool, is it not? Just think of how many lives have been ruined because of possession of the wrong kind of plant. Who could enforce that kind of law? What kind of person? At best one could dump the weed on the ground, but to suspend all professional licenses so the person cannot work and then fine them large sums of money or threaten with jail time is morally reprehensible. Cops should exist to "serve and protect" and that's it. No enforcement of morality. If people want to use drugs, gamble, engage in prostitution, drive without a seatbelt, drink beer on sunday, then they should be allowed to make their own decisions as they see fit without having to worry about the inquisition seeking to make their life hell over a victimless crime. 5. Because they have come to realize that this is not a man's world anymore and they choose to follow the same spirit which brought the man into the Armed Forces. That's perversion of tradition. I am not sure what you mean by this. If a woman, for the most part, cannot exercise the same rights as a man, then THAT to me is perversion of tradition. It's traditional that men and women have specific roles. It's perversion of tradition in equalizing those roles. Right or wrong, that's what it is. Some forms of *tradition* need to be eradicated ~ like the man feeling that he owns the woman, she is just so much chattel to him, what he says *goes* and if she doesn't *stay in line* he can beat her. I agree there, but I don't think that is as prevalent as some think. In fact, it's probably more likely to be the other way around. Cue the colloquial cartoon woman with frying pan or rolling pin chasing the man out of the kitchen. Everyone knows women secretly rule the roost Tradition in my book can often be a refusal to change, and a detrimental one at that!!!!!!1111 Abandonment of tradition is how societies always come to ruin as generations lose sight of what made a strong civilization. Just because the water is calm doesn't mean there are no crocodiles or that they have gone extinct. Traditions seem silly now, but they used to be sensible. 6. To get away from the kids. (with tongue in cheek). That's funny, but who are the kids pawned off upon? I only meant it to be funny. As a mother, I cannot really relate to that but that is just me. It might be as a result of my own upbringing. But I cannot really judge another woman unless she has deliberately abandoned her children. If her motivation and intent is for a good cause to her, than who am I to say?! I think that if there is a good cause, we cannot think in terms of being *pawned off on someone*. There is usually some loving, caring and protective person to step in. The question is: What good cause? How often has it been only in hindsight that we realize the so-called cause was not worth it. I would never want the mother of my child to forsake attendance to the child for any reason. Whatever the calamity is, I'll handle it or find someone else to help. Equal rights means equal sharing of the responsibilities which once belonged to the man. Yep and leaves the kids dangling somewhere. This one made me hesitate. There is truth in what you say depending on the situation/circumstances and the individuals. But might YOU think that for the most part the children can still be well taken care of, feel safe and secure ~ reasonably so at least? There is more to raising children than merely keeping them safe and fed. She must spend time with them. She can't dump them off with grandparents and march off to prove she's just as manly as men. The last time anyone has ever fought for freedom was the revolutionary war. The civil war, WWI and WWII, Korean, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and all the skirmishes did not protect nor establish my freedoms; only the revolutionary war. The American Revolution, together with westward expansion and the market revolution, destroyed the hierarchical world inherited from the colonial era. As the expanding commercial society redefined property to include control over one's own labor, and the opening of the West enabled millions of American families to acquire land, old inequalities crumbled and the link between property and voting was severed. Political democracy became essential to American ideas of freedom. This was a remarkable development. "Democracy" in the eighteenth century was a negative idea, a term of abuse. The idea that sovereignty rightly belongs to the mass of ordinary, individual, and equal citizens represented a new departure. With its provisions for lifetime judges, a senate elected by state legislatures, and a cumbersome, indirect method of choosing the president, the national constitution hardly established a functioning democracy. But in the new republic, more and more citizens attended political meetings, became avid readers of newspapers and pamphlets, and insisted on the right of the people to debate public issues and to organize to affect public policy. http://digitalhistory.hsp.org/pafrm/ess ... an-freedom How old are you anyway? 13.772 billion years according to latest calculations I hate that soldiers flatter and congratulate themselves for "protecting my freedoms" when they've done nothing of the kind since my freedoms were never in danger. I am not so sure how many of these do what you say. I also wonder how some of these soldiers who do not feel as you think they do would feel on reading the above? Might it make them feel that their friends died in vain or that they themselves have lost limbs in vain or become paralyzed in vain for doing what they felt was the right thing to do? They'd probably get mad at me rather than the ones who took advantage of some vulnerability that they had. Would you say that the right to live, to exist, can be perceived as a freedom at least in a broad sense? So, these men and women who are consciously fighting and have fought terrorism are not in some sense protecting your freedom? We're stirring a beehive and then claim to be fighting the evil bees. If we would leave the arabs alone, they'd leave us alone. So I see troops over there only strengthening the resolve of the enemy and not only are they hurting themselves, but putting me in danger of continued terrorism. I'd feel safer if they'd stop protecting me and come home! The US is like an infestation: Is it possible that you cannot know the way in which your freedom[s] may have been in danger since we are not told everything. My freedom is only in danger from within with the passage of new laws that will restrict freedom; not some foreign power or ragtag group of terrorists. Currently we're under siege from regular Joes with ARs and a WaffleHouse was just shot-up the other day in TN where 4 died. School shootings, church shootings, Vegas shooting... why are the troops overseas??? And they are not serving humanity, but serving their elitist masters. That would depend on their consciousness and mentality, no? Yes, I suppose so. Again, most issues are not black and white though you are in part correct. Look what happened in Nazi Germany. Vicious, cruel, barbaric acts by mindless men who thought nothing, felt nothing, but to follow their Fuhrer, a psychopath like their selves. That's a perfect example because every one of them thought they were doing good just as our troops and cops are today. Serving humanity would be not having a war resulting in millions of dead humans. I can agree with this. You may actually be a very empathetic person though you do not always come across that way. You're right, I'm overly empathetic imo, but I'm not very personable and that's pretty much why I appreciate a woman filling the void in capability that I have as a regular guy; a complement. I'm not doting, artistically expressive, emoting, and, even though the desire is there, I have no capability and certainly no proficiency in it. Some have said I'm on the autism spectrum, but I honestly think I'm just a guy; that's how regular guys are: engineery, mathematical, awkward moments of having no idea what to say or how to say it. Women are better with people and men are better with things, in general. The problem is that many do not want to serve humanity...only their own self-interests (although all things considered, for many of them, wanting a better life for their selves and children is not a terrible thing in itself) But for others, it was their greed, their hunger for power, their need to destroy, to savagely murder innocent children, women and men, ad continuum. Why is it that we have conflicts and wars? Haven't evolved fully? Well, firstly, artificial selection favored the bootlickers and burned those at the stake who rebelled. This behavior has been happening for generations from the tribal chiefs all the way up to kings and emperors. Secondly, the public education system was implemented as a means of teaching subservience. I'm old enough to remember having to pledge allegiance to the flag every morning. Public education's indoctrination of societal obligation was inspiration for Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall" song. We don't need no education We don't need no thought control No dark sarcasm in the classroom Teachers leave them kids alone Hey! Teacher, leave us kids alone! All in all you're just another brick in the wall So if we're all part of a larger organism, then who is the head? You should watch the Hellstorm movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psicZ2LdrzE The allies dropped bombs on German citizens, repeatedly, for nothing other than to have them roasted alive in the boiling asphalt of the streets. I would not flatter myself for being party to that. Then they ran about raping all the women and come how to parades and congratulate themselves for protecting my freedoms. Pft. Thank you for sending *Hellstorm*. I am in the process of watching it. It is not such an easy thing to watch...it is disturbing and horrible to see how human life has so little value, especially innocent human life. I do not suppose that any nation is innocent and some are far more guilty than others. I cannot understand just what is accomplished by slaughtering so many people, dropping bombs over and over again on innocent people, especially in Dresden. How do we justify doing that? We are, were like animals callously and blatantly killing innocents. You said it! That's an example of a righteous war. I would be interested in knowing how war crimes were judged considering all of the innocent civilian lives which were destroyed ON ALL SIDES. Don't read this until you feel you have a strong constitution... and even then it will stay with you for a lifetime https://www.darkmoon.me/2015/torture-an ... nuremberg/ I either never learned about these things (or perhaps they were downplayed) or forgot about them. I know it is a cliche but it is true. The more I learn, the more I realize how ignorant I am and how little I understand why we do the things which we do. I know just enough to realize that I don't know enough to really say who was right, but I think Hitler and the Nazis had many atrocities framed on them that either never happened or weren't sanctioned by them. History is written by the winners and I know how people are. No doubt embellishment and fabrication exists since the ends justify any means necessary to prevent a resurgence of nationalism. They wanted to portray the egregiousness with such shock and awe that even 100 years later people would still remember. This was definitely meant to be the end-all of nationalism. Never ever again will it rise. Then there was Nazi Germany and Hitler...their atrocities... but that certainly does not include all Germans, many of whom were against the Nazis. It is heartbreaking knowing what we are capable of doing as human beings to one another and we always seem to think that we ourselves are in the right. Self-righteousness. Exactly. That's why the cops have no business imposing their morality on other people. That's what Hitler did to the Jews: "We don't want your homosexuality and smut, but the highest calling of a woman is motherhood." Prussia, the largest and most populous of the länder, did not enforce Paragraph 175 under the leadership of the Social Democratic Otto Braun from 1918 to 1932, which had the effect of making Prussia into a haven for homosexuals all across Germany. In the 1920s, gay culture had flourished in Prussia, especially Berlin, which was known as the "homosexual capital of Europe", and many homosexuals had came out of the closet.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecuti ... aust#Purge In 1934, Hitler proclaimed, "[Woman's] world is her husband, her family, her children, her house."[28] Women's highest calling was to be motherhood. Laws that had protected women's rights were repealed and new laws were introduced to restrict women to the home and in their roles as wives and mothers. Women were barred from government and university positions. Women's rights groups, such as the moderate BDF, were disbanded, and replaced with new social groups that would reinforce Nazi values, under the leadership of the Nazi Party and the head of women's affairs in Nazi Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_ ... y#Nazi_era In the same way that drugs, gambling, sodomy, prostitution are morally wrong, then so is a mother or potential mother having a career morally wrong. For the same good ole fashioned christian reasons! War does not seem to make much sense to me, especially when we see such horrible acts such as the bombing of Germany, Germany's Blitz, which ALSO killed many innocent civilians. https://www.express.co.uk/news/history/ ... tory-facts, our senseless bombing of innocent civilians, including children, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Nazi's extermination of the Jews, including women and children, all told between 5 and 6 million. War brings out the best in a human and the worst in a human. I suppose that Patton's statement that *Well is hell* was not such a simple statement. Could hell, if believed in, be any worse? And every one of those people responsible thought they were doing the right thing. Righteousness is extremely hazardous to the population. Most people stigmatize wars fought for greed, like Saddam attacking Kuwait, and praise the righteous defenders for coming to the rescue, but the virtue pyramid is upside down. Wars fought for good ole fashioned greed are less atrocious than righteous wars because the greedy do not want to destroy, but capture for their own use, yet the righteous want total annihilation of whatever they deem as "evil". Here is an excerpt from someone named Octavusprime: I know that Germany was obliterated during the war. I've seen the pictures of cities leveled by bombs. Unfortunately, this was the way of war back in this time. Both sides practiced carpet bombing of cities with the use of infernal bombs, it was a horrible time for man. I wonder how the cities in the UK compared in terms of devastation from evil Hitler's carpet bombing campaigns. Despite the truth in much that is stated in this video, it is also full of German pride and says nothing of what Germany did. Well, he said at the beginning that if you wanted to hear that side of it, you'd only need to read or watch anything else in existence.... any history book, Hollywood film, history channel, etc. The propaganda that was used against the Germans is just regurgitated back at the Allies in this film. It is obvious to me that this film was made by those that at the very least are Nazi sympathizers. I am German myself but the tone of this film is disturbing. Intentionally disregarding what Nazi Germany did and just focusing on what the Allies did to the Germans. Some of it is absolutely true but to ignore what was done by Germany is in a way condoning the Nazi regime and ignoring German made atrocities. Yes but he should realize that he's approaching it from the assumption of the Nazi atrocities that he neither witnessed nor has really seen proof. I mean, I'm no fan of Hitler, but surely everyone has wondered how anyone could be so evil as he's portrayed. The piled-up bodies you've seen on tv are explained by being the result of starvation due to the allies cutting off supply lines and consequent disease that wiped them out. Look how skinny they were. Those people starved and died of disease. They didn't get off a train all fat n happy just to walk into a gas chamber. Look at the pics of google images and see if you can find a dead fat person at a concentration camp. I'm sure a lot of bad things happened and I'm pretty sure the germans used diesel engines to gas some people in poland, but I also think the story has been embellished to aid in demonizing the nazis, which I think most people would see as "perfectly fine" since Hitler deserves it, and there is my point (righteous indignation). Taking a necessary risk undermines valor since there is no other option. I am not sure if I agree with this but I will give it some thought. But please explain how the necessity of it undermines valor. Change my mind. Because valor only comes due to having a choice not to choose it. If you chase an animal into a corner and suddenly it becomes brave because it has no other option, would you say that was a courageous animal? Taking unnecessary risks underpins valor since safer options exist. This I can agree with because I do think that discretion IS the better part of valor. Is it valor or is it stupidity brought about by the thrill of it all and the flow of adrenaline? Climbing a tree to save a kitten is heroic, but climbing a tree for fun is stupid. Why the difference? Why is that called "discretion"? The person saving the child has no other option and can't be said to be brave because who can stand and watch a child drown? But he or she does have an option. To give the excuse that they cannot. It actually does depend on the individual though, does it not? It comes down to how much we value human life, especially that of a child. Another not so black and white issue. I suppose so. But to swim without a purpose demonstrates fearlessness. I often swim without a purpose. How is this fearlessness? I just love water. It's juxtaposed to the last quote: Saving a drowning child is noble, but swimming for fun is an unnecessary risk. I'm saying that taking unnecessary risks for fun is more a demonstration of fearlessness than taking risks for a noble cause. You don't display the same valor on here. I doubt you'll even reply to this, if history is a guide. Hmmm...What is it that they say one makes of him/her -self when they assume? It was a safe bet, but if I hadn't said anything.... then what? We had a discussion going a few weeks ago on another thread and as far as I know, you left me dangling there (maybe you didn't know), so I just assumed it was a trend among the women as men also leave me hanging, but last longer than the women due to men's competitive nature. Of course, now that I've said it, maybe you will, but I'm convinced you wouldn't have otherwise. That is your own subjective thinking and lack of knowledge. I will not ask you to read some of my posts as time may not allow it. We choose our battles and our war. It also depends on what we value and hold meaningful. Well if you expect that no one is going to read it, then why would you reply? This will only end when no one talks because the odds of getting a reply is too low. I think the idea of being here is to engage in philosophical conversations and if one doesn't have time for that, I'd have to wonder what other motivation exists. Well, I was right Right about what? I don't know. The relevant part of the quote is missing. Well, I believe there is no unselfish act, so any act of courage will ultimately be to one's own benefit. I understand what you are saying but I am not so sure that this is totally true. Could there be an example of where someone knows beyond the shadow of a doubt that saving someone would ultimately cost him his own life? Any choice he makes will ultimately be for his own perceived good. So if he chooses to die with honor by saving someone, then he's doing what is best for himself. You save the baby from the burning building because you couldn't live with yourself if you did not, or possibly to gain honor among people. It would be a function of how you're put together and the cultural influences. Yes, that could hold true for some. Would that make it less of a sacrifice not knowing the outcome? Human beings are complex creatures. We are all put together differently. What might be a cultural influence here? The value of a child's life over anything else? Yes, one would be plastered all over the news as a baby-saver. Well, if I say "hold my beer while I ride this machine up this mountain just to see if I can", that is a needless risk. How steep is the mountain and what machine is he riding? He may be reasonably sure that he could do it. He may be expert at it. If he wants to "see if he can", then he's not an expert, but is walking into the unknown with low odds of surviving just to see if he can. Is deep-sea diving and hot-air ballooning a needless risk? Many things are some degree of risky but do we say *no* to everything? Do You yourself say *no* to everything? Where do you find your aha moments! I'm merely referring to a propensity to take risks in general. It will be expressed in all aspects of life: from skydiving to how one drives their car to whether or not they jump into debates. Sometimes the differences are small, subtle, nuanced and sometimes not. Fun conversation! You're east-going, honest, fair and I like that! Serendipper Philosopher Posts: 2178 Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm ### Re: Female power over men Serendipper wrote: Jakob wrote:If risk avoiding is a girls game, why aren't any of the supposed men here engaging the difficult point about the risks of pregnancy? You are the only one forwarding that idea, which I have already addressed, then you scurried away in terror lest you became involved in "peripheral bantering" which may have resulted in the shattering of your Weltanschauung if not for your early withdrawal. If you seriously want to debate me, then grow a pair and I'll consider devoting time and energy into someone who won't retreat to his safe space in fear of mere words. There is something seriously wrong with you. I know this is no news, just an observation. You addressed nothing besides your own cognitive dysfunction fetish. You even went back to literally inverting my statement and then asking me to verify if you got that right. I already saw this debility in you on BTL, which is why I erased you. It is just too repulsive. That you're ugly and physically "underprivileged" does not give you the right to be stupid. I mean everyone has that right but don't flaunt your stupidity. Even in a pool of people that may appear to cheer you on for it. Disgusting. For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals Jakob ILP Legend Posts: 7141 Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm Location: look at my suit ### Re: Female power over men Jakob wrote: Serendipper wrote: Jakob wrote:If risk avoiding is a girls game, why aren't any of the supposed men here engaging the difficult point about the risks of pregnancy? You are the only one forwarding that idea, which I have already addressed, then you scurried away in terror lest you became involved in "peripheral bantering" which may have resulted in the shattering of your Weltanschauung if not for your early withdrawal. If you seriously want to debate me, then grow a pair and I'll consider devoting time and energy into someone who won't retreat to his safe space in fear of mere words. There is something seriously wrong with you. Yes, seriously, I must have a candy ass or something for you to have such a boner for me. You addressed nothing besides your own cognitive dysfunction fetish. Bullshit! You can't substantiate your statement and I'd dare you to try if I thought you wouldn't run away in the middle of it. I've never seen you debate anyone without bailing. You're toothless... all bark and bunghole. You come from behind chucking turds then run like hell so you don't get your ass kicked. You even went back to literally inverting my statement and then asking me to verify if you got that right. I asked how you knew your assertion was true and I did it in the nicest way possible since I already knew you were a prick from the way you treat others on here, so apparently my mistake was assuming you were human-ish. You psychotically blew up for no reason or perhaps because your ship was about to be sunk requiring a convenient way out to save face; one or the other, but you are to one who lost it and reacted emotionally/irrationally as you always seem to do. I already saw this debility in you on BTL, which is why I erased you. It is just too repulsive. Oh so you are Urchin eh? You mean you've been here since 2006 and you're still an impressionable boy? Holy shit! The cat is out of the bag now! That you're ugly and physically "underprivileged" does not give you the right to be stupid. Then what's your excuse? I mean everyone has that right but don't flaunt your stupidity. Even in a pool of people that may appear to cheer you on for it. No one cheers for me unless you consider waving the white flag to be cheering. Disgusting. That's obviously your autograph in ratification of your nonsense. What happened to kek? Did I inadvertently help you to realize you were advocating your own destruction? Now I see why Autsider didn't like you Serendipper Philosopher Posts: 2178 Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm ### Re: Female power over men For all the gawkers and late arrivals, here is the post that gave jakob a conniption: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193935&start=75#p2699352 And the relevant quotes are: Serendipper wrote: Jakob wrote: I don't think in such terms as "should". It surprises me that you do. You're saying I should not think in terms of what I should do? No reply. Serendipper wrote: Jakob wrote:I know what I love, and what I loathe. And I will do everything in my power to destroy what I loathe and cultivate what I love. How can we have an idea of right and wrong without feeling like we should do what is right and should not do what is wrong? And how could we destroy what we loathe if we shouldn't claim what should be done? No reply. Serendipper wrote: Jakob wrote:Rules are necessary, but they need to be the right rules. How do you know the right rules are right? No reply. Instead intelligent counterpoint, I get this: Jakob wrote:Great, Im happy you singled out the important points. The ones the ladies are processing in silent gratitude. Don't want to get lost in peripheral bantering. Dipper, you're missing a lot. For starters, click the image. Pakistan has nukes. The future of the west is about resources, geography, and will. And again when I say "it is not A but B", it is a little surprising to see you say "oh to be clear it is A?" Maybe Uruz can educate some more, Im out. Thanks for the chat. Which is essentially saying "Instead of conceding points, I'm leaving and slandering my opponent so it looks like I won." I hate it for ya, but the burden of proof is on you if you want to assert an objective right and wrong. Serendipper Philosopher Posts: 2178 Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm ### Re: Female power over men Serendipper wrote:For all the gawkers and late arrivals, here is the post that gave jakob a conniption: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193935&start=75#p2699352 And the relevant quotes are: Serendipper wrote: Jakob wrote: I don't think in such terms as "should". It surprises me that you do. You're saying I should not think in terms of what I should do? No reply. I said the precise opposite. Id seen you do this before. Obscenely dumb. Serendipper wrote:How can we have an idea of right and wrong without feeling like we should do what is right and should not do what is wrong? And how could we destroy what we loathe if we shouldn't claim what should be done? No reply. Who is this "we"? Serendipper wrote: Jakob wrote:Rules are necessary, but they need to be the right rules. How do you know the right rules are right? No reply. By judging For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals Jakob ILP Legend Posts: 7141 Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm Location: look at my suit ### Re: Female power over men Serendipper wrote:I asked how you knew your assertion was true and I did it in the nicest way possible since I already knew you were a prick from the way you treat others on here, so apparently my mistake was assuming you were human-ish. You psychotically blew up for no reason or perhaps because your ship was about to be sunk requiring a convenient way out to save face; one or the other, but you are to one who lost it and reacted emotionally/irrationally as you always seem to do. Oh no, Im so sorry I hurt you man. For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals Jakob ILP Legend Posts: 7141 Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm Location: look at my suit ### Re: Female power over men In the meantime still no one has responded to the pregnancy/risk issue. Or to the issue of women, being the frail gender, being necessarily more risk-taking in seeking a mate. If these things aren't understood, all this resentment over women not constantly putting everything completely on the line for the benefit of a bunch of adolescent apes will keep lingering. For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals Jakob ILP Legend Posts: 7141 Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm Location: look at my suit ### Re: Female power over men WendyDarling wrote:Arc and I have answered some of your previous posts. Go back and reread, you've forgotten. Waiting for further responses. "I'm sorry, but the lifestyle you've ordered that you've grown accustomed to is completely out of stock. Have a nice day! "-$$\$

Zero_Sum
Evil Neo-Nazi Extraordinaire.

Posts: 2876
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: U.S.S.A- Newly lead Bolshevik Soviet block. Also known as Weimar America.

### Re: Female power over men

Jakob wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Jakob wrote: I don't think in such terms as "should". It surprises me that you do.

You're saying I should not think in terms of what I should do?

I said the precise opposite.
Id seen you do this before. Obscenely dumb.

The opposite eh? So I SHOULD think in terms of what I should do?

Should I or should I not?

Perhaps by "opposite", you meant "you" rather than "me", but that can't be true either because you said "rules are necessary" and rules are what people *should* do. And then you said "but they must be the right rules" as if there is a right and wrong that other people *should* and *should* not do.

Either way, you've lost. Suck it up like a man; that's the most admirable thing you could do at this point.

The correct answer is Mark Twain's "All things in moderation, including moderation." Clearly we cannot make a religion of no-religion or we've defeated the purpose of not having a religion (ie what we should do).

Jakob wrote:
Serendipper wrote:How can we have an idea of right and wrong without feeling like we should do what is right and should not do what is wrong? And how could we destroy what we loathe if we shouldn't claim what should be done?

Who is this "we"?

You don't know who we are but you call me dumb?

Jakob wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Jakob wrote:Rules are necessary, but they need to be the right rules.

How do you know the right rules are right?

By judging

By what authority do you make yourself judge of others? By what authority do you even make yourself judge of yourself? How do YOU know what is good for YOU?

The only innocent motivation is that of fun; as soon as you've embarked on some concept of right or wrong, you've made an objective claim and asserted an absolute truth which can only come by authority. Therefore the only innocent motivation is: "I'm eating this food because it's what I craved, not because it's good for me. I'm meditating because it's fun, not because it's good for me. I'm studying philosophy because it's fun, not because I think I'm going to achieve something." That which is not fun is arrogance, but don't make a religion of gaiety.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

PreviousNext